[PATCH] Updated *sh://host... patch

[Matt Mackall]

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 12:34 +0200, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
> Benoit,
> 
> It is a little strange to specify --ssh=rsh ssh://host/path... Isn't
> it much more precise and consistent to
> just use rsh://host/path?

It would be if we supported rsh, but we don't! Rsh is a bad idea even on
'secure' networks as it's just far too promiscuous, and it would be
irresponsible of us to even mention its unfortunate continued existence
as someone might then decide to use it. Instead, we support using random
ssh-like tools, like fsh, lsh, dropbear, etc. But we're not going to
support cool things like fsh: so why would we support rsh:?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.