Re: remote#branch

[Tom Prince <tom.prince@ualberta.net>]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:59:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Not that I care, but git should probably handle things consistently.
> 
> Git has been, and *is* entirely consistent. It uses convenient repo names. 
> If you don't want to call them url's, then call them "repository name". 
> Call them whatever. But they are 100% obvious, even if there are multiple 
> forms of them (and *none* of the forms do any quoting at all):
> 
>  - <remote shorthand> ("origin")
>  - <path> ("../git.git")
>  - <host>:<path> ("master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/...")
>  - <protocol>://<host>/<path> ("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. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the first three
be changed at all. So, to use your terminology, git has a variety of ways to
specify a repo name, one of which happens to be a URL (or looks like one). The
suggestion is that we should make that way (and only that way) behave like a
RFC URL.

And git should be consistent with web browsers, automatically quoting things
it gets passed. I think the only point of contention is probably how to deal
with URLs that git receives that are already quoted.

1. We ignore the quoting and re-encode everything for the http transport.
2. We honour the encoding and decode everything for the git transport.
3. We handle git:// and http:// different, so that the three git:// URLs below
refer to different repositories, while the three http:// URLs give refer to
the same repository.

> > git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux acpi-2.6/ibm-acpi-2.6.git
> > git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux+acpi-2.6/ibm-acpi-2.6.git
> > git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux%20acpi-2.6/ibm-acpi-2.6.git
> 
> > http://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux acpi-2.6/ibm-acpi-2.6.git
> > http://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux+acpi-2.6/ibm-acpi-2.6.git
> > http://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux%20acpi-2.6/ibm-acpi-2.6.git

The third possibility is probably what we do now, which is why I am suggesting
git is inconsistent. The first will fall down when using a repository that is
colocated, and somebody copies a URL from the web browsers location bar (which
will be properly encoded). Which leaves the second.

  Tom