"David Symonds" <dsymonds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 28/08/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> And that is how it was designed to be. The URL's are for *git*, not >> for other uses. If you want to do cross-SCM tools, you need to let >> them know it's a "git" thing wheher it's browsable or not, so the >> argument that ssh is something "different" is bogus crapola. > > That throws out the *U* of *URL*, which stands for Uniform. If you > have to say whether a URL is a "git" URL or some other kind of URL, > it's no longer a Uniform Resource Locator. Huh? Do you think a URL "http:" ceases to be a URL if there is browser-specific code behind it? > Perhaps git:// URLs shouldn't be used at all, and we should just use > file://, ssh://, http://, etc., Huh? git:// uses a particular reserved port. > since the scheme is usually there to explicitly denote the protocol > we want to use, and the fact we're using that protocol to do git > work is implicit in the 'git' at the start of the command-line. It > makes sense to me that both 'git clone <URL> foo' and 'rsync <URL> > foo' would both work roughly the same, assuming both git and rsync > support the URL's scheme. It doesn't to me. Not least of all because rsync does not work using URLs to start with. Can all of the U-is-Universal-flouting people read the manual pages of the utilities they are advertising? It would make the discussion less surreal. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - 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
