From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Git benchmark - comparison with Bazaar, Darcs, Git and Mercurial Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200708010216.59750.jnareb@gmail.com> <7vodhrby6f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070801092428.GB28106@thunk.org> <7vr6mn5znm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070801220350.GD28106@thunk.org> <20070802040201.GI23484@lifeintegrity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , Junio C Hamano , Jakub Narebski , Git Mailing List To: Allan Wind X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 02 06:14:23 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 1IGS4s-00019d-V3 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:14:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750902AbXHBEOE (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 00:14:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750841AbXHBEOD (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 00:14:03 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:56837 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750838AbXHBEOB (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 00:14:01 -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 l724DLVJ005412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:13:23 -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 l724DGlL004686; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:13:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070802040201.GI23484@lifeintegrity.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.72 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.20__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $ 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 Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Allan Wind wrote: > > I would expect /something and file:///something to behave exactly the > same way (the latter just having bit extra syntax sugar). I do agree that they should be basically the same, but from an implementation standpoint it actually makes a lot of sense to separate them. Also, there's actually a small amount of "logic" in it: the /something is obviously a "raw filename", while the "file:://something" clearly is something a lot more abstract. I don't actually have a very strong opinion, but I do think that "file://" makes sense regardless (ie the patch I sent out is probably a good idea). I also strongly dispute that "file://something" is _identical_ to just "something". There's a huge difference, as anybody who has ever tried to do cp file://file-A file-B will have hopefully found out. They may mean the same thing, but they have totally different levels of abstraction, so it does actually make some sense that you end up *cloning* the same thing, but different ways. Linus