How much is Bitbucket largefiles support worth to you?

[Sean Farley]

Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> writes:

> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 00:16 +0000, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>> 
>> On 02/12/2016 12:15 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 02/11/2016 10:58 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> writes:
>> > > 
>> > > > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Sean Farley <sean at farley.io> wrote:
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> writes:
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > On 02/10/2016 07:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>> > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > > Using capability seems a quite good idea indeed. I do not get the
>> > > > > > > issue
>> > > > > > > Sean is trying to point at as I'm not sure I see a significant
>> > > > > > > difference between the capability and pushkey approach.
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Are capabilities sent before or after authentication?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > After, which is why pushkey probably makes more sense.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Err, that should say before. Listen to what I mean, not what I type.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Sigh.
>> > > 
>> > > ;-)
>> > > 
>> > > If the capabilities are sent before, then pushkey would be the only way
>> > > to send the customized url (with the authentication token) in it.
>> > 
>> > The capabilities are sent "before" what?
>> 
>> Ha before authentication (Stupid email client ordering).
>> 
>> Okay, we are on the same page now.
>
> ???
>
> Mercurial does no authentication of its own and does not actually start
> communicating until the "link layer" (authenticated http[s] or ssh) is already
> established.
>
> Hgweb does a level of authorization: deciding what access the http[s]
> authenticated user is allowed to do. On the ssh side this is controlled by
> filesystem-level user permissions.
>
> So, yes, the capabilities report happens after authentication and can be made to
> depend on user/repo/whatever. IIRC, largefiles already amends the capabilities
> report on a per-repo basis.

Ah, thanks for the explanation!