Hi, On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > 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. I really have to wonder what the benefits are. git:// does not need authentification, it is fetch-only, and you can (and should!) verify the integrity with git-fsck anyway. So all TLS would add to is waste bandwidth and CPU cycles. Ciao, Dscho - 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
