From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] connect.c: Improve parsing of literal IPV6 addresses Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:52 -0800 Message-ID: References: <54BD3D14.90309@web.de> <20150122200702.GA96498@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net> <54C17429.1090403@web.de> <20150122234117.GD96498@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net> <54E61285.5070600@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org, lists@hcf.yourweb.de To: Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 19 18:55:04 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YOVJW-0001Na-8H for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:55:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751977AbbBSRy6 convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:54:58 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:58315 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751597AbbBSRy5 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:54:57 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C55838198; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:54:55 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=WEmmWcGk2YeE NLh2bCx/O5H/K58=; b=dmk6KduYXbZT2YmtU33tmQIx7jTXyBYIA3HKwmvfn/bb FWiUYGdzoMHdLg+azpB5jJ0n0NDRiGKlkGPJ3ggLsX54iI2/tX0FuucMCao4CLsQ Yuwz3U+KeqwOUeVBzza6WhTIdBrcVnKk461Ym8DwEQ2BCSL2fxMpoE6Y7cSKd1s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=oqzvnW 48RmX0QsbuUlJt81veM+GhSzAARKh0o74qp02Sz6cRfOXNq9cL+NSZBAyUDaVazx tjv5LBsoGCAea6+TuStDmPTbaF2jt5yBPGcT83Vo8ysDG/ufwzcfcR8dO0jQaToP wxzIVLn1x9xCH5Qd7ItUVqwkQlzj11eeakq5c= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9275C38196; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0D9138195; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:54:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <54E61285.5070600@web.de> ("Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershaus?= =?utf-8?Q?en=22's?= message of "Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:42:45 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6929BFB8-B860-11E4-9782-A4119F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Torsten B=C3=B6gershausen writes: > On 02/18/2015 07:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "brian m. carlson" writes: >> >>> I understand that this used to work, but it probably shouldn't have >>> ever been accepted. It's nonstandard, and if we accept it for ssh, >>> people will want it to work for https, and due to libcurl, it simpl= y >>> won't. >>> >>> I prefer to see our past acceptance of this format as a bug. This = is >>> the first that I've heard of anyone noticing this (since 2013), so = it >>> can't be in common usage. >>> >>> If we accept it, we should explicitly document it as being deprecat= ed >>> and note that it's inconsistent with the way everything else works. >> I was reviewing my Undecided pile today, and I think your objection >> makes sense. >> >> Either of you care to update documentation, please, before I drop >> this series and forget about it? > > The URL RFC is much stricter regarding which characters that are allo= wed > in which part of the URL, as least as I read it. > ... > I'm somewhat unsure what to write in the documentation, I must admit. I can see that you do not agree with the "If we accept it" part (where "it" refers to "allowing [...] was a bug.")---past acceptance was not a bug for you. Brian is for that "If we accept it", and sees it as a bug. So let's see what he comes up with as a follow-up to the "we should explicitly document it" part.