Linus Torvalds wrote: > As to your TLS example: if we were to do "git over TLS", it would make > perfect sense to use either "tls://" (although "gits://" might be more > natural, not because tls is wrong, but because people have gotten used to > "https://";) if we were to have a "secure git" port. Or maybe we'd use the > same port number that we already have assigned for git, and just add some > "use TLS to authenticate/encrypt", and use "tls://" for that. It makes > perfect sense. I like gits:// idea for "git over TLS", and I'm against "tls://". I wonder if it would be hard to implement "git overt TLS"? We could resurrect patch which allowed push over git protocol, onnly restricting pushing to gits protocol. -- Jakub Narebski Poland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
