Re: netsync over ssh revisited
Richard Levitte <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In message <[email protected]> on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:56:12 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte <[email protected]> said: richard> I had a look in std_hooks.lua and noticed the ssh+ux: schema, which richard> basically does what I'm after... Speaking of this, I'm thinking about that scheme name, and it comes out as odd to me... there seems to be a concensus out there that a protocol transported through another protocol should be named {protocol}+{transport}. ssh+ux: does the exact opposite, and ux+ssh: would be more appropriate. Furthermore, since that's basically UNIX domain sockets piped through SSH, and mtn supports local UNIX domain sockets through the scheme local: (because netxx does that, that's why), I'm pondering that the ssh+ux: scheme should really be renamed to local+ssh: (of course, we can keep ssh+ux: as an alias). Thoughts? Either way, I realised that the possible uris aren't fully documented in the manual, so I'm doing so now. And I think it would be good to have a consensus on local+ssh: vs ux+ssh: vs ssh+ux: before the added documentation gets published. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] http://richard.levitte.org/ "Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!" -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish