On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:34:37AM CEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Sam Vilain wrote:
> >
> > Why annoying and impractical, if you don't ever have to specify it
> > unless you want to write a URI which is portable between applications?
>
> Sure. I'm perfectly happy to make connect.c just ignore any "git+" prefix,
> and let people do it.
>
> What I object to is:
> - the totally *idiotic* notion that "ssh" is somehow different
> - encouraging people to actually *use* that inconvenient format
My logic for using git+ssh is that this URL really denotes a resource
accessed over the *git* *protocol*, merely _wrapped up_ in ssh session
for the authentication and security. But I admit that your point that
this is just exposing an implementation detail is valid.
I still like the naming git+ssh and think it is logical, but I don't
really care that much (and fail to see why do you *hate* it so
intensively). So I'll sleep on it and if no further compelling positive
argument pops in my head, I'll just change it to ssh. (I don't want to
use the host:path notation because I want to make clear it's ssh and
people need to get their usernames and ssh keys in order before
pushing.)
> The fact is, nobody really cares. We've happily used the non-"git+" forms
> for over two years, and there has never *ever* been a case of actual
> confusion. So allowing the "git+" prefix everywhere may be _logical_, but
> it's still totally idiotic and user-unfriendly.
I've never heard of anybody getting confused by the git+ssh syntax
either, and I honestly can't remember the several people that asked me
not to use it (besides one your mail complaining about it, not even
directed at me). But I may have just forgotten.
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead.
-- James Thurber
-
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
