On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org>wrote:
> ... > Is there value in keeping this old method? I personally don't see any, > but then I don't have the background to know why it was done this way. > If i'm not sorely mistaken, the current approach was done because it was quick and easy to add. ssh was added relatively late in Fossil's development (and i've never used it - the CGI interface gives me everything i need), and almost certainly piggybacked on as much connection-related code as it could. > Removing it would simplify the code, but perhaps break unforseen things. > For now, I think it would be alright to leave it in as the default > behavior just to be safe, despite the fact that it introduces multiple > code paths. > i would have thought that it leads to fewer code paths (no ssh-specific server component, for example). > ... The changes are still against version-1.26 (I used it as BASIS when I > branched). I did a test merge against trunk and there were no conflicts. > I'm not certain the changes are implemented in the best way, but they do > work and they also allow for more restricted control using SSH keys. > > Very little has changed in the trunk since then, so i wouldn't expect any conflicts. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
