From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:07:33 GMT Subject: Re: remote#branch Message-ID: <4728EE95.1020004@op5.se> In-Reply-To: <20071031204729.GB13300@coredump.intra.peff.net> Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:28:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Because we don't care! This is *exactly* why I brought up the whole >> discussion about "interoperability with a web browser", and pointed out >> that there is no such thing *anyway*, since a GIT URL is generally not >> suitable for browsing _regardless_ of any encoding issues! >> >> So it doesn't matter one whit if a mail client recognizes GIT URL's or >> not! Because the mail client cannot do the right thing with them anyway, >> and would generally think that it's something that it should highlight so >> that you can browse it! > > Two points: > > 1. Just because _your_ mail client can't do anything useful with git > URLs^H^H^H^H repo specifications, doesn't mean that others can't. > > 2. You are conflating syntax and semantics. Think of the task I > mentioned as two subtasks: pulling the location specifier from the > email, and then doing something useful with it (in this case, > git-cloning it it). The first subtask depends _only_ on a parseable > syntax. The user can provide the context necessary for accomplishing > the second subtask. > > For example, consider a terminal that, upon pressing some keyboard > combination, will highlight the first URL-ish looking blob on the > screen, prompt you for a command, and then execute '$command $url'. The > terminal doesn't have to know the semantics of the blob, but it has to > know the syntax. The user provides the semantics. > > And yes, such a terminal exists, and I'm using it right now. > Great. Now you just need a git-repo with an url that needs quoting, and this discussion could at least potentially solve a real problem for someone. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231