On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 04:47:29PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote: > > But now, looking at the UsingGit wiki page that is linked there, I think > the same sort of update would be useful in that list of urls at the > top. Right now the ssh://git.savannah.gnu.org/srv/git/mygroup.git is > said to be only for read/write member access. > > Also, I believe the http:// urls of the last two now automatically > redirect to https, so might as well write them with https in the first > place, if they're still relevant. (They did work.)
I'm not sure. when I clone with an http:// URL, git remote -v shows http:// URLs for me. > Also, instead of bolding two items in the middle of the list, I think it > would rather more parsable to write the recommended ones first, in one > list (including the new svuser read-only access), and then the other > ones in a second list. With some explanation as to the current woes of > https://git.savannah.gnu.org. Done, thanks. > But finally, now I'm confused again. The first url in the list is > git://git.savannah.gnu.org/mygroup.git > and indeed, for example, > git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/config.git > apparently works fine. > > So wouldn't this be the simplest/best way to get an anonymous read-only > checkout for anyone, not requiring an sv account and not using https? > Is there an advantage to the ssh/member method for readonly? -k I can see two, * git:// doesn't authenticate the server * ssh:// clone becomes read-write once the user joins the group (no need to clone again)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
