Just to confirm that Marius' proposed fix didn't work - it led to other 
problems.

I don't yet know enough about Ruby to debug this...


On Thursday, 26 May 2011 12:17:24 UTC+1, Christian Johansen wrote:
>
>
>
> 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]

Reply via email to