Re: remote#branch

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Oct 30, 2007, 17:39 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710301037120.30120@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071030160232.GB2640@hermes.priv>

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Tom Prince wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> >
> >  - <remote shorthand> ("origin")
> >  - <path> ("../git.git")
> >  - <host>:<path> ("master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/...")
> >  - <protocol>://<host>/<path> ("git://repo.or.cz/...")
> >
> > See? We may not follow RFC's, but we follow "easy to use".
>
> Well, only the last one actually looks like a URL, so that is the only this
> discussion is about.

NO.

The thing is, we'd be much better off being consistent with OURSELVES than with something else!

Nobody cares about git being consistent with a web browser. There is nothing in common.

But I *do* care about git being consistent with itself. If I do

	git clone /some/directory

and then decide that I want to generate a new pack and change it into

	git clone file:///some/directory

I don't want to have to re-write the thing to quote differently!

The same very much goes for a path like

	git://git.kernel.org/<path>

vs

	master.kernel.org:<path>

because I will use the two interchangably. They *are* the same address, except:

 - the "git://" protocol is a bit faster, since the ssh connection
   overhead is actually big enough to be quite noticeable.

 - but I often use the master.kernel.org:<path> thing because there's a
   mirroring delay that means that accessing it directly is sometimes
   preferable.

See? THAT is where we need to be consistent: with our own paths!

[ And yes, I literally really do switch things around exactly like that 
  between ssh accesses and the git:// protocol. That was not a made-up 
  example, but real usage! ]

In contrast, nobody has _ever_ given a real technical reason to care about the Web URL RFC at all.

Really. It's that simple: if you cannot argue for something without pointing to an irrelevant standard, you really shouldn't argue for it in the first place.

People who make decisions based on "it's a standard" make *sub*standard decisions. The fact is, most standards are not worth even using as toilet paper, because they were designed by some committee that wanted to reach "consensus". That's just crap.

                        Linus