On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:49AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 04:23:17PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > While working on the http code refactoring, I got to wonder if the > > > walker.c "wrapper", that is only used for the http transport, is still > > > worth keeping. If there are plans for others transport to use this code, > > > obviously, it would be worth keeping, but on the contrary, I think it > > > would simplify the http transport code even more. What do you think ? > > > > It would be a good base for sftp (i.e. dumb file access over ssh). In > > fact, I think stuff should ideally be moved into walker.c such that the > > HTTP-specific code just handles access to files by filename and the logic > > of what files to request in what order is in walker.c. I think this would > > get the simplification you're looking for while making it easy to add sftp > > or any other situation where you have only slow remote filesystem-like > > access to the repository. > > I like this idea. I'll probably implement that, then. BTW, would there be objections to have http-push as a builtin ? Mike - 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
