From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kyle J. McKay" Subject: Re: git_inetd_server: run git-http-backend using inetd Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:08:18 -0700 Message-ID: References: <43923BC7-08AF-4900-AC5E-B2F0FE7CD5AC@gmail.com> <20140717221056.GO12427@google.com> <8E3CD89B-2E47-4CA8-8F3D-598A9BE2AD9F@gmail.com> <20140718022208.GQ12427@google.com> <50047EE8-4EF8-49E3-9067-1C88B2FB9D58@gmail.com> <20140718171635.GR12427@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git mailing list To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 19 02:08:29 2014 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 1X8ICR-0000EY-2O for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 02:08:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752140AbaGSAIW (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:08:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:52289 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbaGSAIV (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:08:21 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id bj1so6345849pad.39 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc; bh=bHzm+6095oF5s4RsBRkwxnw/f0u7Us2r9AwU0Av8EwU=; b=bsXfQe6TqD3DB1P9PaTl7WOC6b+OTT0D/ce0+3FRxziY/rQeWfokYwoIH/FM7PL50n WZBMRbgKyOG11hnGqm1v1RmerEq8q/FdepyXzunxKw2nMGuyS6SuXwExXD7ht9u9055K fdeL6UKAOJC7rUlYbHZlkaTIR2QH7AcYM7uaeVdd5tKFIt15MRKPghhB6ZcMLlACgWN8 Ox7Teh/DJ5kcwxk2m3JQ19ieYrb+2q71tAZz5aZArxfBExrHYyPZLYee+9BDZj1X7gyJ knn6UDPFwcgnK8XZYo1Utf7uGc65ust2cw5aae/5il8GiS9TyTqasUBYT35WKxQDop8j XHew== X-Received: by 10.70.33.228 with SMTP id u4mr9204035pdi.6.1405728501249; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.16.105] (ip72-192-173-141.sd.sd.cox.net. [72.192.173.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ec2sm6734429pbc.63.2014.07.18.17.08.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:08:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140718171635.GR12427@google.com> X-Mauler: Craptastic (2.936) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Kyle J. McKay wrote: > >> You might also want to take a look at [1] which suggests that when >> doing SRV lookups for URLs they should be done regardless of whether >> or not a port number is present (which then eliminates the RFC 3986 >> issue the current SRV lookup code has). > > "Git URLs" as described e.g. in git-clone(1) weren't intended to be > actual URIs. According to RFC 3968 section 1.1.3: "A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs" [...] So actually they are URIs. > What would be the interoperability advantage of making > them URIs? According to RFC 3968 they are already considered URIs. > This has come up before, with e.g. people asking to introduce a > git+ssh:// and git+http:// How is a discussion about changing the scheme name relevant to a discussion about treating a URL with an explicit default port the same as one without (which Git already does but stops doing with the 0010 git SRV patch)? That would seem to be an orthogonal discussion to whether or not to change the scheme name(s) used by Git more than 9 years after it first came out.