On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 23:40, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right. Am I understanding this correctly that you are not exposing >> Gitorious over HTTP at all? Only HTTPS? >> > Just so. Is there a configuration option somewhere for this that I might > have missed? (Actually, thb I'm a bit vague on why gitorious has this > indirection at all -- I suppose I could write some more rules in apache > config to allow http connections to those urls from localhost only, but it > seems like there ought to be a more direct approach to all this than making > HTTP requests after SSHing; gitorious can just call itself as ruby without > rails/passenger at that point and get the job done that way, can't it?)
We will probably move to doing this without HTTP, yes. As for your issue, see this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/gitorious/browse_thread/thread/36ad12033bbd651aIt's not actually clear to me if Marius' proposed fix worked, but if you could try it too and confirm I will push this to master. > > > will there be any patches coming down the line for making sub-URI >> installs work a little more smoothly? >> >> >> There are currently no specific plans to do so, but I'm all for it. I >> don't think it will be a huge job. If anyone is up for doing it (remember >> tests!) I'll be happy to merge it in. >> >> (Another option is to fund development which would allow us to more easily >> prioritise it. Sorry for the blatant sell, but we're doing Gitorious for a >> living, and there's a lot to do, can't prioritise it all...) >> > Well, I'm liable to throw some time into it when I get copious amounts of > it free myself to come to grips with ruby, but I'm just a university > researcher and I'm afraid I haven't got that budget, and even if I could > repurpose some grant money I don't rightly think I've got a chance at > selling it to my lab without the HTTPS issues all fixed and something along > the lines of merge request 115 getting into mainline. Anyway! > Sure, I thought I'd just mention it. Something along the lines of 115 will probably land some day, but currently this would require funding somehow, as we're not going to use it on gitorious.org. > > First question would then be how to best make a unified go of it, since > there's not currently an entry for specifying the web URI in gitorious.yml, > but quite a few parts of the system adapt just fine anyway. In other words, > I don't think it'd take me too much time to hack some more string ops > throughout, but it seems like it'd be in the best interest of the project to > make sure there's a single idiom used consistently for this (and I don't > think that's something it would be appropriate for me to be taking the lead > on per se). I see at > http://www.modrails.com/documentation/Users%20guide%20Apache.html#sub_uri_deployment_uri_fixthat > Rails comes with some functions that help with this on the actual HTML > generation side of things, but they appear to be radically overspecialized > and not so useful as a result. > I did some experimenting with Passenger sub urls a while ago. I concluded that it only solves part of the puzzle, but unfortunately I seem to have not taken any notes as to what the specific problems were. If we could make the Passenger route work that would probably be the cleanest solution. I guess the remaining problem is making sure Gitorious always gets its URLs from Rails. This is not the case for instance in the ssh client, which pieces together the URL as a string (because it runs without the Rails environment). So - I suspect we need a setting in gitorious.yml anyway. > > I do also have a couple tickets open at the lighthouse site that should be > specific enough to make really short work of some low-hanging fruit for > anyone already familiar with where things are in the codebase. I will take a look. Christian -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
