Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
>  - if you really think that the above is sensible, then explain why.
> 
>  - if you think that is TOTALLY IDIOTIC, then explain why "ssh://" is so 
>    magically special that it would somehow make sense to say "git+" for 
>    it?

This is also useful for foreign SCM support; the idea of supporting
svn+ssh:// "directly" with git remote and the likes.

I don't usually write git+ssh://, but I do consider it to be the form
which is more in the spirit of application interoperability.  It says
what it is, which is ssh tunnelled git protocol.

quoted text
> As to your TLS example: if we were to do "git over TLS", it would make 
> perfect sense to use either "tls://" (although "gits://" might be more 
> natural, not because tls is wrong, but because people have gotten used to 
> "https://") if we were to have a "secure git" port. Or maybe we'd use the 
> same port number that we already have assigned for git, and just add some 
> "use TLS to authenticate/encrypt", and use "tls://" for that. It makes 
> perfect sense.

The scheme is bad because it doesn't integrate with other appliations.
Seeing the URI in a web page they have no way of knowing which
application or port this tls:// URI refers to.  It's not *universal*.

This is fine for URIs passed into git, but bad if you want to link to it
from elsewhere.

Sam.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html