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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to