On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:59 PM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner < > ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > >> >> > >> > Yes, this used to be the case, and is the reason behind the original >> > recommendation. It's what they call the "dumb HTTP protocol" in the >> > docs. This is not the case when you use git-http-backend, which is the >> > change we made a few months back. >> >> Agreed - wrt the actual patch - not sure it is accurate to classify the >> current way als the "older git protocol" as I cannot find that wording >> used in the git docs - maybe "classic"? > > > Neither "older" nor "classic" appeal to me. If you want to convey an > opinion of quality I'd say something like "the more limited git protocol" > otherwise its just "the git protocol" and we can explain the pros and cons > between the http and git protocols. Noting the improvement of the http > protocol from its former "dumb" version, early on so people have the new > paradigm in their head when they get to the quality comparison, will be > worthwhile for some period of time. > > Just "the git protocol" is probably best here, so changed to that. I also changed the http->https urls per Stefans suggestion. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
