On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Eric Wong <normalper...@yhbt.net> wrote: > I suggest keeping git:// running as automated mirrors may not be > monitored very closely or easily updated.
That's a good point. I'd forgotten about automated mirrors. I'll keep logs of the git:// pulls for a month or so and see if there are any regular pullers and also if I can track down the source IP. Perhaps it's a manageable pool of people to switch over. > git already has plenty of integrity checking built-in and > getting the proper hashes for the heads/tags over a > trusted-enough medium is enough (or reading the fine code). No, git's built-in integrity protection really is not sufficient if the transport is compromised. > And as others have said, HTTPS isn't impenetrable I'd like some specific details on this repeated claim. > the CA system is still a major problem. True. But there doesn't appear to be a widely deployed alternative. > Also, TLS libraries can introduce new bugs and vulnerabilities > like Heartbleed. This is true, but I already require a public TLS deployment, so it's there regardless. _______________________________________________ CGit mailing list CGit@lists.zx2c4.com http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit