Re: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?

Mike Hommey [off-list ref] writes:

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:

quoted

While working on the http code refactoring, I got to wonder if the 
walker.c "wrapper", that is only used for the http transport, is still 
worth keeping. If there are plans for others transport to use this code, 
obviously, it would be worth keeping, but on the contrary, I think it 
would simplify the http transport code even more. What do you think ?

Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly 
enough, so let's keep it.

I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start 
scratching that itch, right?

Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code.

IIRC git fetch works with FTP transport.  Somebody would have to write
replacement for WebDAV authentication for ftp / sftp / ftps to have
proper ftp push support.  There were request, but AFAIR no code.

Are you thinking about POP / IMAP transport, or XMPP one ;-PPP ?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git