Hi Jeff, On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > I do not mind reverting the merge to 'next' to have an improved > > > version. Your "do we really want to add a custom server based on > > > questionable codebase whose quality as a test-bed for real world > > > usage is dubious?" is a valid concern. > > > > Except. > > > > Except that this code base would have made for a fine base to potentially > > implement an HTTPS-based replacement for the aging and insecure > > git-daemon. > > I'm skeptical that it is a good idea for Git to implement a custom http > server from scratch. To be clear: I never suggested to implement a generic HTTP server. All I wanted was to have a replacement for `git daemon` that speaks https:// instead of git://. It does not have to speak to every browser out there, it only needs to respond well when speaking to Git clients. That is a much, much smaller surface than "production-ready server, HTTP/2 and so on". And while the proposed test helper was not quite complete in that way, and while it may have had much of the `git daemon` code that you would love to lose, it would have offered an incremental way forward. I am afraid that this way forward is now blocked, and we're further away from dropping that `git daemon` code you wanted to drop than ever. Ciao, Johannes
