On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Allan Wind wrote: > > I would expect /something and file:///something to behave exactly the > same way (the latter just having bit extra syntax sugar). I do agree that they should be basically the same, but from an implementation standpoint it actually makes a lot of sense to separate them. Also, there's actually a small amount of "logic" in it: the /something is obviously a "raw filename", while the "file:://something" clearly is something a lot more abstract. I don't actually have a very strong opinion, but I do think that "file://" makes sense regardless (ie the patch I sent out is probably a good idea). I also strongly dispute that "file://something" is _identical_ to just "something". There's a huge difference, as anybody who has ever tried to do cp file://file-A file-B will have hopefully found out. They may mean the same thing, but they have totally different levels of abstraction, so it does actually make some sense that you end up *cloning* the same thing, but different ways. Linus - 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
