From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: remote#branch Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20071029174000.GA4449@efreet.light.src> <20071029214925.GH21133@thunk.org> <20071030030104.GK21133@thunk.org> <7vtzo9s221.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071030044026.GA9600@thunk.org> <20071030053732.GA16963@hermes.priv> <20071030160232.GB2640@hermes.priv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , Junio C Hamano , Jan Hudec , Johannes Schindelin , Petr Baudis , Paolo Ciarrocchi , git@vger.kernel.org To: Tom Prince X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 30 18:40:24 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Imv4e-0001Bl-FV for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:40:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752759AbXJ3RkA (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:40:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752757AbXJ3RkA (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:40:00 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:60484 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752435AbXJ3Rj7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:39:59 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [207.189.120.55]) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l9UHd4BS025887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:39:05 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l9UHd3sJ019373; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:39:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20071030160232.GB2640@hermes.priv> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.433 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_66 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.47__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Tom Prince wrote: > > > > - ("origin") > > - ("../git.git") > > - : ("master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/...") > > - :/// ("git://repo.or.cz/...") > > > > See? We may not follow RFC's, but we follow "easy to use". > > Well, only the last one actually looks like a URL, so that is the only this > discussion is about. NO. The thing is, we'd be much better off being consistent with OURSELVES than with something else! Nobody cares about git being consistent with a web browser. There is nothing in common. But I *do* care about git being consistent with itself. If I do git clone /some/directory and then decide that I want to generate a new pack and change it into git clone file:///some/directory I don't want to have to re-write the thing to quote differently! The same very much goes for a path like git://git.kernel.org/ vs master.kernel.org: because I will use the two interchangably. They *are* the same address, except: - the "git://" protocol is a bit faster, since the ssh connection overhead is actually big enough to be quite noticeable. - but I often use the master.kernel.org: thing because there's a mirroring delay that means that accessing it directly is sometimes preferable. See? THAT is where we need to be consistent: with our own paths! [ And yes, I literally really do switch things around exactly like that between ssh accesses and the git:// protocol. That was not a made-up example, but real usage! ] In contrast, nobody has _ever_ given a real technical reason to care about the Web URL RFC at all. Really. It's that simple: if you cannot argue for something without pointing to an irrelevant standard, you really shouldn't argue for it in the first place. People who make decisions based on "it's a standard" make *sub*standard decisions. The fact is, most standards are not worth even using as toilet paper, because they were designed by some committee that wanted to reach "consensus". That's just crap. Linus