Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So you definitely need to "somehow" know that a URL is meant to be used > with Git. And that makes me somewhat sympathetic to your request. Nicely summarized. I am also sympathetic to the cause, but I do not see upside in tucking the information to the URL syntax. Even if we limit ourselves to the CI context, I do not see how the repository location alone is sufficient (e.g. "build the tip of this branch of that repository every time it gets updated" already needs more than the repository location). > The downsides I see are: > > - one of the advantages of straight http:// URLs is that they can > accessed by multiple tools. Most "forge" tools let you use the same > URL both for getting a human-readable page in a browser, as well as > accessing the repository with the Git CLI. I'd hate to see https+git > URLs become common, because they add friction there (though simply > supporting them at all gives people the choice of whether to use > them). > > - I'm also sympathetic to brian's point that there's a wider > ecosystem. It's not just "git" that needs to learn them. It's jgit, > and libgit2, and many tools that work with git remotes. Yup.
