On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:53:07AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Well, but there is the above "or we may not" ;-) > > > >> But actually you are right, currently I still have the old logic > >> in place that splits on colons in the path component. > > > > Yes. The reason why I suggested the simple route was exactly > > because I noticed that you didn't seem to care about the above > > "$site/foo:bar.git/" => "$site/foo:bar" => "bar" transform. > > > > And I think people might depend on that behaviour. "Fixing" that > > may even be seen as a regression. > > > > When was the last time you created a foo@xxxxxxx repository? > > Actually, this was an unrelated question and a wrong one to ask at > that. > > Even though I personally haven't created foo:bar.git repository, > because it is no longer 2005, it is highly likely that somewhere > there is such a person who depends on the current behaviour of > turning that to "bar" on the cloned side. Similarly, even if we the > people who read the Git mailing list collectively do not know > anybody who has foo@xxxxxxx repository, it is highly likely that > somewhere there is such a person who depends on the current > behaviour of turning that to "foo@bar" on the cloned side. > > So the ideal would be to keep turning $site/foo:bar.git to bar, > $site/foo@xxxxxxx to foo@bar, and $scheme//u@p:$host/ to $host. > > And it would be ideal if we do so without much code churn. "The > whole site is dedicated to host a single repository at the root" is > a highly unlikely set-up and it feels wasteful to spend too much > effort on. One more question for backwards compatibility remains then. Currently when we clone something like 'http://example.com:2222/' we'd create a git repository '2222' as we'd split on the first occurrence of ':'. Should we remain backwards compatible here, as well, or change the behavior to use 'example.com' as repository name?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature