"David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:

quoted text
> On 28/08/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> And that is how it was designed to be. The URL's are for *git*, not
>> for other uses. If you want to do cross-SCM tools, you need to let
>> them know it's a "git" thing wheher it's browsable or not, so the
>> argument that ssh is something "different" is bogus crapola.
>
> That throws out the *U* of *URL*, which stands for Uniform. If you
> have to say whether a URL is a "git" URL or some other kind of URL,
> it's no longer a Uniform Resource Locator.

Huh?  Do you think a URL "http:" ceases to be a URL if there is
browser-specific code behind it?

quoted text
> Perhaps git:// URLs shouldn't be used at all, and we should just use
> file://, ssh://, http://, etc.,

Huh?  git:// uses a particular reserved port.

quoted text
> since the scheme is usually there to explicitly denote the protocol
> we want to use, and the fact we're using that protocol to do git
> work is implicit in the 'git' at the start of the command-line. It
> makes sense to me that both 'git clone <URL> foo' and 'rsync <URL>
> foo' would both work roughly the same, assuming both git and rsync
> support the URL's scheme.

It doesn't to me.  Not least of all because rsync does not work using
URLs to start with.  Can all of the U-is-Universal-flouting people
read the manual pages of the utilities they are advertising?

It would make the discussion less surreal.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
-
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