Mike Hommey writes:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 02:48:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> So, even if we agree that per-port behaviour is not something we
>> would use if we were building the system without any existing users
>> today, I do not think we want "git now fails with an error" at all.
>
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 02:48:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> So, even if we agree that per-port behaviour is not something we
> would use if we were building the system without any existing users
> today, I do not think we want "git now fails with an error" at all.
> It goes against the approa
Mike Hommey writes:
> Currently, core.gitProxy doesn't actually match purely on domain names
> as documented: it also matches ports.
>
> So a core.gitProxy value like "script for kernel.org" doesn't make the
> script called for an url like git://kernel.org:port/path, while it is
> called for git:
Currently, core.gitProxy doesn't actually match purely on domain names
as documented: it also matches ports.
So a core.gitProxy value like "script for kernel.org" doesn't make the
script called for an url like git://kernel.org:port/path, while it is
called for git://kernel.org/path.
This per-port
4 matches
Mail list logo
