This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: patch website for git
- From: Fred Cooke <fred dot cooke at gmail dot com>
- To: David Daney <ddaney dot cavm at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Binutils Development <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:46:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: patch website for git
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <878uzlvg2t dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <521E49E9 dot 50107 at gmail dot com>
FWIW, github only does https for non-push repos now. **
** and non-git methods, which don't count.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/28/2013 11:13 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>
>> I thought I'd send out a few preliminary patches for review. This way
>> much of the work can be already approved once I do the git conversion.
>>
>> This patch updates the binutils web site for the change to git.
>>
>> Note that it presumes the existence of "src.git", which of course does
>> not exist yet.
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>
> Nice.
>
>
>> Tom
>>
>> Index: index.html
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/binutils/htdocs/index.html,v
>> retrieving revision 1.67
>> diff -u -r1.67 index.html
>> --- index.html 29 Apr 2013 08:41:47 -0000 1.67
>> +++ index.html 28 Aug 2013 17:59:14 -0000
>
> [...]
>
>> - cvs -z 9 -d :pserver:anoncvs@sourceware.org:/cvs/src login
>> - {enter "anoncvs" as the password}
>> - cvs -z 9 -d :pserver:anoncvs@sourceware.org:/cvs/src co binutils
>> + git clone git://sourceware.org/git/src.git
>
>
> Maybe off topic, but ... should we also make the repo available via the
> http:// protocol?
>
> Advantages:
>
> 1) Some places block things other than http:// on TCP port 80.
>
> Disadvantages
>
> 1) Might create higher server load.
> 2) ??
>
>
> Admittedly the pserver protocol probably has the issues with port blocking
> as git does, so people who can currently access CVS would likely not suffer
> a loss in functionality.
>
> David Daney
>
>