Re: git instructions

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:59 PM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <
> stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)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/>