From: Kyle J. McKay Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:08:18 GMT Subject: Re: git_inetd_server: run git-http-backend using inetd Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140718171635.GR12427@google.com> 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.