On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Martin Gagnon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM, j. van den hoff < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> I would really appreciate if the ssh issue could get addressed by the > >> developers. > > > > > > It has my attention. I just don't know what to do about it. Do you have > > any suggestions on how to improve the way the SSH method operates? > > > > I think someone have proposed the ideal solution previously in this > list (I didn't find it on the mailing list archive, yet) > > It would be to execute directly fossil throught ssh with a new fossil > command which would act similar as "fossil test-http", except that it > would process all chunks of sync data until the whole sync/push/pull > is completed. > http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/artifact/935bc0a983135b?ln=192 That's what the current code does. Any ideas on how to make it more robust in the face of varying SSH implementations? > > That way fossil on local side would be directly connected to the > remote fossil pipe and nothing from shell or login session could be in > the way. > > Let say the new fossil command is: fossil ssh-http > So instead of invoking: "ssh -T -e none remotehost", fossil would do: > "fossil remotehost fossil ssh-http" > > When specifying a command to the ssh command line, stdin and stdout > are directly connected to the invoked command, so you cannot have > gargabe between. > > I beleive it's how other scm use ssh... > > Regards > > -- > Martin G. > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected]
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
