On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:09:05AM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote: > On 1/26/08, zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I presume you have a good reason not for allowing access via http? > > > > No, I haven't. Now that I think about it, my not-so-good reason is > > that simply that it doesn't set _darcs/prefs/defaultrepo for me so > > that I can subsequently "darcs push". In other words, it just seems > > natural to use ssh when you have the privilege of doing ssh to the > > server, because it has strictly better access options. > > Not sure if David was asking in the general case -- but there are a > few reasons why using HTTP is awkward. The main one is what Zooko > points out here; if you're set up for HTTP, you can't push to a > default repo. > > But HTTP is also awkward for commercial projects where the repository > cannot be made publicly available. I'm sure Darcs supports SSL/TLS, > but you have to go all the way and make the server do HTTP > authentication, and then I bet you have to put the user name and > password in the URL so that Darcs can authenticate.
I understand that. But for many folks it's a nicer workaround rather than using rsync. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
