On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 02:01:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Yes, this means that if you have a bizarre repo name, you can't
> > necessarily switch between host:file syntax and git:// syntax by simple
> > cut and paste. But you really can't _anyway_, since there is no
> > guarantee that they are rooted at the same location, or have the same
> > view of the filesystem.
>
> .. but in practice it works fine, especially for something like kernel.org
> where it really *is* the same filesystem, just mirrored out.
Yes, and in practice, it works with or without URL encoding, since
people aren't using names that need encoded.
> Also, more importantly, I think the quoting is *stupid*. It adds pointless
> code for absolutely zero gain. Are you going to unquote '/'? Or how about
> '~'?
I don't think it's zero gain; I think it's exactly what users who use
repos with characters that need quoting will expect to happen. That
being said, _I_ don't personally care that much since I think spaces in
filenames are the work of the devil, and I will never use them. And as a
result, I'm not going to implement the code to do it.
But I do think your argument that there is no value in the URL syntax is
just wrong.
I don't understand your mention of '~' and '/'; they don't need quoted
in URLs, and generally are not (though of course they can be).
> .. because it's a simple format, and it *works*. The same way INI config
> files are simple and *work*.
But if you wrote a bunch of documentation referring to the git config
file as an INI file, would you expect people to complain when it
_didn't_ follow the usual expectation for INI files?
OK, this discussion is just getting nowhere, and there is useful git
work I could be doing, so let me sum up my position:
- We should either resolve that some repo specifiers are URLs, or we
should resolve that they are not. I think they are.
- If they are URLs, then we should treat them like URLs, and not
handling quoting is probably a bug. I refuse to accept that it is an
_important_ bug until somebody actually has a repo that needs
quoting, finds that git is substandard, and provides a patch.
- If they are not URLs, then we should probably stop calling them that
in the documentation.
And with that, I shall say no more on the subject. In the spirit of not
saying "oh, I don't want to talk about it anymore, you don't get to say
anything else," I invite you to respond to any of my comments above.
-Peff
-
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
