> > Yes, this used to be the case, and is the reason behind the original > recommendation. It's what they call the "dumb HTTP protocol" in the > docs. This is not the case when you use git-http-backend, which is the > change we made a few months back.
Agreed - wrt the actual patch - not sure it is accurate to classify the current way als the "older git protocol" as I cannot find that wording used in the git docs - maybe "classic"?
Neither "older" nor "classic" appeal to me. If you want to convey an opinion of quality I'd say something like "the more limited git protocol" otherwise its just "the git protocol" and we can explain the pros and cons between the http and git protocols. Noting the improvement of the http protocol from its former "dumb" version, early on so people have the new paradigm in their head when they get to the quality comparison, will be worthwhile for some period of time.
Just "the git protocol" is probably best here, so changed to that. I also changed the http->https urls per Stefans suggestion.
