4 ms·
If you add your ssh key to an ssh-agent you won't have to type the password for it each time and the password won't be stored anywhere. You do still have to tr
by GICodeWarrior 16y ago
If you add your ssh key to an ssh-agent you won't have to type the password for it each time and the password won't be stored anywhere.
You do still have to trust the root user, but this is still way better than putting your password on disk.
- telemachos 16y agoProbably a good point, but my sense is that HTTP is the future (and faster) for git{hub}. I may be wrong about that. Based on the quick downvote, I am wrong. Fair enough, but I'm curious to know, is HTTP not more efficient/quick than ssh now for git? I thought it was.
- GICodeWarrior 16y agoConnection overhead is small for both (if keep-alive is working on https), request/response overhead might be smaller for ssh but probably not terribly and they both use AES encryption (by default) for the transfer so they should be very similar in performance.
- telemachos 16y agoThanks for the reply. I updated the post to include your objection and point here.
- kneath 16y agoHTTP is the future for git and github. It has several benefits and no downsides. 1. No SSH keys required (if you've worked with people on windows machines or newbies to the command line, you'll recognize this is a massive win) 2. The same URL can be used for anonymous clones and private pushes. So if you are granted commit access, all you have to do is `git push` — no more changing remote URLs. 3. We can use the same URL for the web as we can for clones. This is a nice hidden usability win. We're waiting for a couple of things (1.7.2+ to become default distribution, and caching of HTTP credentials) before we make a complete push. That isn't to say we're deprecating ssh or have any plans to. It just means that we'll be increasingly pushing HTTP as the default.