4 ms·

Sorry, i should say that it requires running a web server. And the local web server options are immature. Running a whole web server just to use _git (lfs)_ se

Sorry, i should say that it requires running a web server. And the local web server options are immature. Running a whole web server just to use _git (lfs)_ seems absurd to me. The pattern is clearly intended to be used with the big centralized players - and the idea of normal git patterns, like git lfs in a local fs or git lfs over SSH were secondary concerns. well, not even secondary concerns really - it's not at all supported. To me, this is the core use case for Git. Git LFS is incapable of doing that in the current implementations. Which bothers me.

suifbwish 6y ago
A general purpose utility server is never a bad idea. I have a hypervisor on my home network that I will programmatically spawn instances of various vm images stored on my NAS if my dns server sees a request from my workstation for that resource. I can run about 8 at any time but I have almost a hundred different vm images each with their own purpose
hobofan 6y ago
I've been running git lfs without a webserver on my local NAS with lfs-folderstore[0] without a problem, and it doesn't require a webserver (and can also be used over SSH via sshfs). I can understand wanting such functionality bundled with git lfs, but all the different options seem very opinionated to me in ways that there isn't a clear "default" choice. To me custom transfer agents and transports never felt like an afterthought, and fit quite nicely into there. My main problems with git lfs were more UX problems where certain workloads are not as well supported (e.g. keeping only a portion of the LFS files local). [0]: https://github.com/sinbad/lfs-folderstore https://github.com/sinbad/lfs-folderstore