On 02/03/2010 03:19 AM, Marius Mårnes Mathiesen wrote: > But you guys have your own git-daemon that is run. Such access control > could be coded into this, correct? > > > Actually, to my knowledge, the git protocol itself lacks authentication > support; it is designed for fast read access to repositories.
I'm not talking about the git protocol; I'm talking about the git-daemon process itself. Since you have a custom git-daemon, it's conceivable that part of that customization could be involve access control controlling whether the daemon actually responds to a particular client. > Newer versions of git actually have much improved HTTP support; it is > faster and supports writing (ie push). So HTTP is a real alternative to > SSH these days, as long as the users have recent Git clients. HTTP has supported push for a long time, at least a year. But it doesn't (or maybe didn't) work very well. Client setup could be a pain, and worse, the bare repos on the server often wouldn't update properly, forcing manual intervention to do things like have them garbage collect (I once saw such a bare repo being updated over HTTP balloon from 30MB to 2GB). When I brought these issues up in #git I was told that HTTP was basically a second class citizen and that nobody really was caring much about it. I'd advice much testing, and caution... --Jeff
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
