Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Matthieu Moy
Date: Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 3:20 pm

"Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:


That's not exactly true. You can't be as efficient with dumb protocols
than you are with a dedicated protocol (something with some
intelligence on both sides), but at least the second point you mention
can be achieved with a dumb protocol, and bzr is a proof of existance.
To read over HTTP, it uses ranges request, and to push over
ftp/sftp/webdav, it appends new data to existing files (its ancestor,
GNU Arch, also had a way to be network-efficient on dumb protocols).

Regarding atomic and lock-less updates, I believe this is
implementable too as soon as you have an atomit "rename" in the
protocol. But here, bzr isn't a proof of existance, it does locking.

(BTW, about bzr, it also has a dedicated server now)

-- 
Matthieu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
GIT push to sftp (feature request), pavlix, (Sun Aug 5, 2:05 am)
Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request), Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Aug 5, 6:38 am)
Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request), Martin Langhoff, (Sun Aug 5, 2:12 pm)
Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request), Matthieu Moy, (Sun Aug 5, 3:20 pm)
Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request), Martin Langhoff, (Sun Aug 5, 5:00 pm)
Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request), Matthieu Moy, (Mon Aug 6, 1:59 am)
Re: GIT push to sftp (feature request), Jan Hudec, (Tue Aug 7, 2:50 pm)