Linus Torvalds wrote: > - if you really think that the above is sensible, then explain why. > > - if you think that is TOTALLY IDIOTIC, then explain why "ssh://" is so > magically special that it would somehow make sense to say "git+" for > it? This is also useful for foreign SCM support; the idea of supporting svn+ssh:// "directly" with git remote and the likes. I don't usually write git+ssh://, but I do consider it to be the form which is more in the spirit of application interoperability. It says what it is, which is ssh tunnelled git protocol. > As to your TLS example: if we were to do "git over TLS", it would make > perfect sense to use either "tls://" (although "gits://" might be more > natural, not because tls is wrong, but because people have gotten used to > "https://";) if we were to have a "secure git" port. Or maybe we'd use the > same port number that we already have assigned for git, and just add some > "use TLS to authenticate/encrypt", and use "tls://" for that. It makes > perfect sense. The scheme is bad because it doesn't integrate with other appliations. Seeing the URI in a web page they have no way of knowing which application or port this tls:// URI refers to. It's not *universal*. This is fine for URIs passed into git, but bad if you want to link to it from elsewhere. Sam. - 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
