On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 00:11, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> Hmm, did something change afterwards? I just got a report about issues
> accessing the Buildroot repo over https, and it indeed doesn't seem to
> work:
Famous last minute change. Fixed.
Sorry for that!
> "Bernhard" == Bernhard Reutner-Fischer writes:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 16:43, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> currently, the busybox git server is only providing "dumb http"
>> functionality.
>> This is, for example, demonstrated when trying to make shallow clone:
>>
On 5/13/20 5:38 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 16:43, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> currently, the busybox git server is only providing "dumb http"
>> functionality.
>> This is, for example, demonstrated when trying to make shallow clone:
>>
>> $ git clone
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 16:43, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> currently, the busybox git server is only providing "dumb http"
> functionality.
> This is, for example, demonstrated when trying to make shallow clone:
>
> $ git clone --depth=1 https://git.busybox.net/busybox/
> Cloning into
On 21 April 2020 14:14:50 CEST, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
>I'm glad my message ended the unncessary github discussion.
>
>However, I'd still like to know who is in charge of maintaining
>git.busybox.net, so I can forward this suggestion to the right person.
We are doing this as time permits. I
I'm glad my message ended the unncessary github discussion.
However, I'd still like to know who is in charge of maintaining
git.busybox.net, so I can forward this suggestion to the right person.
On 14.04.20 09:59, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I did not mean to start a discussion
Hi everyone,
I did not mean to start a discussion about switching to github, gitlab
or anything similar.
This is simply a request for a (small) improvement of the current
infrastructure. Eli Schwartz has patiently explained the benefits
in-depth. Thank you for this, Eli!
As far as I know, there
On 4/13/20 7:54 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> busybox - and thus the git repo - is small.
> What - apart from trolling - motivates "--depth=1"?
> To word it another way: What is a somewhat sane use-case
> for "--depth=1"?
It clones 3 MB instead of 28 MB, which is useful if you don't expect to
Hi all!
On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 00:24 +0800, wdlkmpx wrote:
No real name - why do you think one would take you
serious?
[...]
> I'm not sure why the busybox git repo hasn't enabled the smart git
> http, --depth=1, but github already supports that among many other
> smart features.
busybox - and
On 4/13/20 10:54 AM, Markus Gothe wrote:
> Why not set up a local copy if this is a great issue?
Why would one set up a local copy in order to fix the problem where
using git clone or git pull is inefficient and slow? How would one
create the local copy, and how would one update it?
> I'd prefer
On 4/13/20 1:55 PM, Michael Conrad wrote:
> On 4/13/2020 11:31 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> by attempting to demonize the request as an attack from people demanding
>> a workflow change from mailing lists and git to "mandatory github
>> webflow omg so smart".
>
> I think he was serious, actually.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 05:55:40PM +, Michael Conrad wrote:
> On 4/13/2020 11:31 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> > by attempting to demonize the request as an attack from people demanding
> > a workflow change from mailing lists and git to "mandatory github
> > webflow omg so smart".
>
> I think he
On 4/13/2020 11:31 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
by attempting to demonize the request as an attack from people demanding
a workflow change from mailing lists and git to "mandatory github
webflow omg so smart".
I think he was serious, actually. A rare case of needing to turn *off*
your sarcasm
[sending again without duplicated text cos this mail madness is too confusing]
I apologize for the previous message and the following message. It's a
mistake I know, but here it goes. And I hope it goes unpunished.
I'm not sure why the busybox git repo hasn't enabled the smart git
http, depth=1
On 4/13/20 5:04 PM, wdlkmpx wrote:
> busybox should be moved to github or gitlab, that's really smart http
>
> But tracker + git repo + releases + pull requests. As complete as it gets.
>
> No need to send patches through email, even people who don't have git
> installed can use the web site to
On 4/13/20 11:04 AM, wdlkmpx wrote:
> busybox should be moved to github or gitlab, that's really smart http
>
> But tracker + git repo + releases + pull requests. As complete as it gets.
>
> No need to send patches through email, even people who don't have git
> installed can use the web site to
From: wdlk...@gmail.com
Sent: April 13, 2020 17:04
To: busybox@busybox.net
Subject: Re: git smart http for busybox repo
busybox should be moved to github or gitlab, that's really smart http
But tracker + git repo + releases + pull requests. As complete as it gets.
No need to send patches
busybox should be moved to github or gitlab, that's really smart http
But tracker + git repo + releases + pull requests. As complete as it gets.
No need to send patches through email, even people who don't have git
installed can use the web site to edit files and open pull requests.
It's just
: April 13, 2020 16:43
To: busybox@busybox.net
Subject: git smart http for busybox repo
Hi,
currently, the busybox git server is only providing "dumb http"
functionality.
This is, for example, demonstrated when trying to make shallow clone:
$ git clone --depth=1 https://git.busybox.n
Hi,
currently, the busybox git server is only providing "dumb http"
functionality.
This is, for example, demonstrated when trying to make shallow clone:
$ git clone --depth=1 https://git.busybox.net/busybox/
Cloning into 'busybox'...
fatal: dumb http transport does not support shallow
20 matches
Mail list logo
