Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:19:39PM +0100, Chris Webb wrote: > > > How about only testing for a git documentation directory if both > > help.htmlpath isn't set (so we're using the compiled-in version) and the > > compiled-in version doesn't contain ://? > > That just seems needlessly complex. Why not just check for "://" and be > done? [...] > So one solution would be to simply remove the check entirely. It was a > slight nicety in some situations, but expanding the definition of the > HTML path to include full URLs means we can no longer accurately > determine what exists and what does not. So we can just stop trying and > let the browser handle it completely. Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This, and "://", both sound sensible. I have no real preference between any of the suggestions so far: they'd all be completely fine with me. Peff's :// test for a URL is much better than my http: prefix, so should replace the latter if we need a test at all, but apart from that I don't mind at all. Okay, I'll re-send now the :// version I did in response to Peff's first email purely on the basis that it doesn't change the behaviour at all for existing users who don't set htmlpath at all, plus it's already sat in my reflog! However, if you'd both prefer a version in which I just take the check out altogether, let me know and I'll spin that instead. Cheers, Chris. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html