BitBucket is supported with like Github with:
butbucket://<butbucket_path>/<srcpath>.
With regards to GitLab, their download zip format is/was different
enough from BitBucket/Github to make it difficult to provide the same
level of support. See the series of comments here[1].
When the github:// was first introduced it was done in such a way that
users of projects on GitHub did not have to have git installed on their
local computers ... it was a way to make it possible for folks to begin
using git without requiring everyone to install git ...
These days, we are getting to the point where I am beginning to flip the
question on it's head and begin thinking that it should be possible for
a developer to choose to have have the github:// url interpreted as
"create a local clone of the remote repository" instead of "download a
tarball of the remote repository" . With this approach it should be
possible to include gitlab url support as well since the gitlab issue is
related to the specific handling of repository tarballs...
... there are current discussions in this area on these two issues [2]
and [3].
Dale
[1] https://github.com/Metacello/metacello/issues/287#issuecomment-59815235
[2] https://github.com/Metacello/metacello/issues/474
[3] https://github.com/Metacello/metacello/issues/475
On 12/19/17 10:25 AM, Vitor Medina Cruz wrote:
Hello,
Using github://<github_path>/<srcpath> metacello works fine, but is
there another more general way of refering to a remote git repo? From
BitBucket or Gitlab for example.
Regards,
Vitor
