Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync over ssh revisited

[Richard Levitte]

In message <address@hidden> on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:56:12 +0200 (CEST), Richard 
Levitte <address@hidden> 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                         address@hidden
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish