On 2021-03-15 at 18:14:31, Drew DeVault wrote: > On Mon Mar 15, 2021 at 1:56 PM EDT, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > The missing piece is an HTTP header to unambiguously mark that URL as > > being usable by Git. I'm not aware of a standard way to do that; e.g. > > golang's "go get" tool[*] uses a custom 'meta name="go-import"' HTML > > element. > > I don't agree that this is the case. It would be much better to be able > to identify a URL as being useful for git without having to perform a > network request to find out. But you can't find whether a URL is useful for a particular purpose in general. For example, if I see an HTTPS URL, that tells me nothing about the resources that one might find at that URL. One might find: * A plain dumb Git remote. * A plain smart Git remote. * A smart Git remote and Git LFS support. * A human-readable text response. * A machine-readable JSON response. * A binary document which is intended to be human intelligible. * Something else. * Nothing at all. In addition, it's possible that the data you want exists, but is not suitable for you in whatever way (not in a language you understand, in an unsuitable format, is illegal or offensive, etc.), or you are not authorized to access it. You can't know any of this without making some sort of request. All a URL can tell you is literally where a resource is located. Even if we saw a URL that used the hypothetical https+git as the scheme, we couldn't determine whether we could access the data, whether the data even still exists, or, even if we knew all of those things, whether it was using the smart or dumb protocol, without making a request. So I don't think this is a thing we can do, simply because in general URLs aren't suitable for sharing this kind of information. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Houston, Texas, US
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
