On Mon Mar 15, 2021 at 9:02 PM EDT, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > I'm not sure it's a disconnect; instead, it just looks like we > disagree. That said, with more details about the use case it might be > possible to sway me in another direction. > > To maintain the URI analogy: the URI does not tell me the content-type > of what I can access from there. Until I know that content-type, I > may not know what the best tool is to access it. git isn't a content type, it's a protocol. git over HTTP or git over SSH is a protocol in its own right, distinct from these base protocols, in the same sense that SSH lives on top of TCP which lives on top of IP which is transmitted to your computer over ethernet or 802.11. It's turtles all the way down. > The root of the disagreement, though, is "Git URLs" looking like a URI > in the first place. They're not meant to be universal at all. They > are specifically for Git. At worst I would call this a happy coincidence. We have this convenient universal format at our disposal, and we would be wise to take advantage of it. Rejecting it on the premise that we never wanted to have it doesn't make sense when we consider that (1) we do have it and (2) it can be of good use to us.
