Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes:
> There where 2 comments in the review.
> The most important thing is that now
> git://[example.com:123]/path/to/repo is valid, but it shouldn't.
> This patch fixes it:
>
> @@ -673,7 +669,7 @@ static enum protocol parse_connect_url(const char *url_orig, char **ret_user,
> * "host:port" and NULL.
> * To support this undocumented legacy we still need to split the port.
> */
> - if (!port)
> + if (!port && protocol == PROTO_SSH)
Hmph, which one of these (if any) is valid, which ones aren't and
why?
git://[example.com:123]/path/to/repo
ssh://[example.com:123]/path/to/repo
[example.com:123]:/path/to/repo
I am wondering about the latter two, because both of them would
become PROTO_SSH at some point in the codepath. And I am wondering
about the first two, because they look the same at the syntactic
level and if one is allowed the users would expect the other would
also be (or vice versa).
--
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