Hi,
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
> > > index cc76e3f..d8458dc 100644
> > > --- a/transport.c
> > > +++ b/transport.c
> > > @@ -44,8 +44,6 @@ static int disconnect_walker(struct transport *transport)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static const struct transport_ops rsync_transport;
> > > -
> > > static int curl_transport_push(struct transport *transport, int refspec_nr, const char **refspec, int flags) {
> > > const char **argv;
> > > int argc;
> > > @@ -431,18 +406,31 @@ struct transport *transport_get(struct remote *remote, const char *url)
> > > ret->url = url;
> > >
> > > if (!prefixcmp(url, "rsync://")) {
> > > - ret->ops = &rsync_transport;
> > > + /* not supported; don't populate any ops */
> > > +
> >
> > That is sneaky. What are the reasons to remove rsync support? I know it
> > is deprecated, but I'd still like to have it, especially for initial
> > clones on small-RAMed machines.
>
> It never got implemented in a way called from C. This is just removing the
> pointer to the empty struct where support would go. If anybody knows
> enough about interfacing with rsync to write the necessary functions, it
> can be restored.
Okay, will do once I find the time.
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
