From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: repo.or.cz wishes? Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:58:01 +1200 Message-ID: <46D356F9.1010506@vilain.net> References: <20070826235944.GM1219@pasky.or.cz> <20070827001634.GB1976MdfPADPa@greensroom.kotnet.org> <20070827004153.GN1219@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin Mares , Petr Baudis , skimo@liacs.nl, git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Narebski To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 28 01:41:25 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IPnr4-0006F7-4X for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:18:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753027AbXH0W6l (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:58:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753165AbXH0W6l (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:58:41 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:33376 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752928AbXH0W6k (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:58:40 -0400 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 86C2E21CFA9; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:58:38 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.2.22] (leibniz.catalyst.net.nz [202.78.240.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E0C21CFA2; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:58:33 +1200 (NZST) User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070606) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > - if you really think that the above is sensible, then explain why. > > - if you think that is TOTALLY IDIOTIC, then explain why "ssh://" is so > magically special that it would somehow make sense to say "git+" for > it? This is also useful for foreign SCM support; the idea of supporting svn+ssh:// "directly" with git remote and the likes. I don't usually write git+ssh://, but I do consider it to be the form which is more in the spirit of application interoperability. It says what it is, which is ssh tunnelled git protocol. > As to your TLS example: if we were to do "git over TLS", it would make > perfect sense to use either "tls://" (although "gits://" might be more > natural, not because tls is wrong, but because people have gotten used to > "https://") if we were to have a "secure git" port. Or maybe we'd use the > same port number that we already have assigned for git, and just add some > "use TLS to authenticate/encrypt", and use "tls://" for that. It makes > perfect sense. The scheme is bad because it doesn't integrate with other appliations. Seeing the URI in a web page they have no way of knowing which application or port this tls:// URI refers to. It's not *universal*. This is fine for URIs passed into git, but bad if you want to link to it from elsewhere. Sam.