From: Toon Claes <toon@iotcl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:11:23 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] refs: add GIT_REF_URI to specify reference backend and directory
Message-ID: <87see1vszo.fsf@iotcl.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZTn5UEqifJrJcVfCt=YyVOa3CMdLRsLpG=g4x2vmDPeKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Toon Claes <toon@iotcl.com> writes:
>>
>>>>     <ref_backend>://<path>
>>>
>>> I like this idea. This would allow us in the future to also do something
>>> like:
>>>
>>>     reftable+nfs://10.11.12.13/ref-dir
>>
>> I actually thought from Karthik's definition that what you are
>> trying to say is spelled more like this:
>>
>>     reftable://nfs://10.11.12.13/ref-dir

LOL, I didn't realize since 07c7782cc8 (Disown ssh+git and git+ssh,
2016-02-15) 'ssh+git' isn't actually mentioned no more.

>> IOW, the underlying URI to "reach the resource" is in the <path>
>> part (i.e., "nfs://<addr>/<directory>").  And I found it somewhat a
>> strange syntax, because the "to reach the resource, visit this" URI
>> may not necessarily look like <path>, and I also wondered if
>> spelling it like <ref_backend>:<URI-for-resource> is more
>> appropriate.
>
> This is a much better way to state what I was going for, I was
> considering the entire <ref_backend>:<path> as the URI since currently
> we only deal with FS paths (for files and reftable). But that could
> potentially change. As such, it makes sense to state it as
> <ref_backend>:<URI-for-resource>. Will modify accordingly.

I don't really care on the format, as long as we're consistent. I know
Patrick is working on pluggable object databases and also there he's
suggesting to do `<backend_type>://<URI>` which might also lead to
double `://` use. But I guess that's still subjected to change.

That said. Should we change the current proposal of
`<ref_backend>://<path>` to `<ref_backend>:file://<path>`? Or can we
simply assume the latter implied from the former?


-- 
Cheers,
Toon