Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Git remote helpers to implement smart transports.
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 2, 2009, 18:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vy6lldwyo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v3a3tfbsx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes: > >> I don't see how what you are talking about is any different. With the >> mapping the executable of the alternative implementation still needs >> to have a different name, no? > > Sure, but please search for "second class citizen" in my message.
Also "extra level of indication".
I do not think "remote-curl" was the best name, and hindsight tells me that "remote-walker" might have been a better name (it tells us how it does it more clearly).
And I do not at all mind making the current hard-coded mapping from http:// to remote-walker to an external table look-up, perhaps something that can be controlled by .git/config, with a built-in default that is hard-coded like the way we have now.
After all my main objection is against closing the door to others by one particular implementation squating on "remote-http" name and refusing the use of that nice, authoritative-sounding name by others.