On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:03:02PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> > writes: > > > From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> > > > > The `git serve` built-in was introduced in ed10cb952d31 (serve: > > introduce git-serve, 2018-03-15) as a backend to serve Git protocol v2, > > probably originally intended to be spawned by `git upload-pack`. > > > > However, in the version that the protocol v2 patches made it into core > > Git, `git upload-pack` calls the `serve()` function directly instead of > > spawning `git serve`; The only reason in life for `git serve` to survive > > as a built-in command is to provide a way to test the protocol v2 > > functionality. > > > > Meaning that it does not even have to be a built-in that is installed > > with end-user facing Git installations, but it can be a test helper > > instead. > > > > Let's make it so. > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> > > I've excluded this step from tonight's pushout, as I would want to > hear from the people on the other side who have (once) thought that > this was an addition we would want to have, before we remove/demote > it. > > I do not personally think, as the design of v2 stands, a standalone > "serve" server that "can serve anything as long as it goes over > protocol v2" makes much sense, but perhaps those who have been doing > the v2 work may have different ideas, in which case let's hear what > their plans are.
I too would like to hear more definite comments from people who think git-serve is worth keeping. In the meantime, there's some discussion from this thread in December: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ especially this sub-thread: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ (In case you do not feel like reading the whole thing, my opinion there is that git-serve is probably not the right direction, and we would do well to demote it as Dscho's patch does). -Peff
