> > 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..
Using 'git clone --depth=1' don't do the trick and leave the process both efficient and general accross all git repos? On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Dale Henrichs < dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > 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#issuecomme > nt-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 >> > > >
