On 3/16/21 7:54 AM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2021-03-16 at 04:38:08, Eli Schwartz wrote: >> Why does this even matter? Again, the point here is the assertion by >> Drew that, for the purpose of listing a manifest of remotely fetchable >> resources, he sees a benefit to having some standard format for the URI >> itself, describing how it's intended to be fetched. >> >> - ftp:// -> use the `ftp` tool >> - scp:// -> use the `scp` tool >> - http:// -> use the `wget` tool >> - git+http:// -> use the `git` tool >> >> But instead of needing every program with a git integration to >> reimplement "recognize git+http and do substring prefix removal before >> passing to git", the suggestion is for git to do this. > > I believe this construct is nonstandard. It is better to use standard > URL syntax when possible because it makes it much, much easier for > people to use standard tooling to parse and handle URLs. Such tooling > may have special cases for the HTTP syntax that it doesn't use in MAILTO > syntax, so it's important to pick something that works automatically. > > It's difficult enough to handle parsing of SSH specifications and > distinguish them uniformly from Windows paths (think of an alias named > "c"), so I'd prefer we didn't add additional complexity to handle this > case. > > Lest you think that only Git has to handle parsing these, the Git LFS > project (and every other implementation compatible with Git) has to > handle parsing them as well (and related things like url.*.insteadOf), > and providing bug-for-bug compatible behavior is generally a hassle. > We've run into numerous problems where things aren't exactly the same, > and making things more complex by adding an esoteric syntax that few > users are likely to use isn't helping. Despite the fact that ssh+git is > specified as deprecated, we had people expect it to magically work and > had to support it in Git LFS. > > So I'm very much opposed to adding, expanding, or giving any sort of > official blessing to this syntax, especially when there are perfectly > valid and equivalent schemes that are already blessed and registered > with IANA. Suddenly I'm hearing a much more reasonable response than "but it doesn't give me content-type so I can't know which media application is capable of opening it". (I'm not especially attached to the proposal. I'm a maintainer for one of these package managers that currently special-case git+https?:// and rewrite the url that git sees, which has worked adequately for a long time. However, I figured if you want to reject this proposal, reject it for a good reason...) -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
