On 2/3/20, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
>
> Yes. git9 takes URLs. This is why I posted a link to the spec that we
> should follow. I will take patches that bring us in compliance with
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/git/git/master/Documentation/urls.txt
>
I must have missed that the first time,
On 2/3/20, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
> this was a huge mistake. in plan9 we are lucky not to
> be affected by this too much and we can handle these
> things without much pain and without touching every
> program.
>
I am not challenging the lucky break Bell Labs got with the use of
exclamati
> But where I only partially agree is where Plan 9 concepts contradict
> what may be "common practice". A URL is a well defined object and
> adopting it as a standard, as quite a few services have done (I'm
> thinking PostgreSQL and OpenLDAP, for example) rather than pursue the
> '!' convention see
> But where I only partially agree is where Plan 9 concepts contradict
> what may be "common practice". A URL is a well defined object and
> adopting it as a standard, as quite a few services have done (I'm
> thinking PostgreSQL and OpenLDAP, for example) rather than pursue the
> '!' convention see
On 2/3/20, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> we have to decide every time when we interoperate inferior systems
> where to draw the border, how much we want to imitate and how much is
> better hidden when it doesn't fit.
> in this corner-case thankfully the decision is trivial.
> git is full of othe
we have to decide every time when we interoperate inferior systems
where to draw the border, how much we want to imitate and how much is
better hidden when it doesn't fit.
in this corner-case thankfully the decision is trivial.
git is full of other much more icky weirdness and i'm quite astonished
On 2/3/20, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> since plan9 is different we already have host!port, changing one
> program to host:port without changing all the others does not seem
> consistent to me.
>
I can't argue with that point, except that the ! notation had escaped
me altogether, whereas the
i agree. the scp -P vs. ssh -p inconsistency is a good reminder
showing why the host:port or host!port syntax is more useful.
since plan9 is different we already have host!port, changing one
program to host:port without changing all the others does not seem
consistent to me.
-
