search

emacsmirror / epkgs

Emacs package database
https://emacsmirror.org
15 stars 0 forks source link

GitHub URLs missing `.git` suffix #1

Closed darkfeline closed 1 month ago

darkfeline commented 1 month ago

The GitHub repo URLs (e.g., in .gitmodules) are all missing the .git suffix.

Of course, GitHub still supports these URLs and will very likely continue to do so. However, the canonical URLs include the .git suffix.

This is a minor annoyance for me, because when I install such packages (e.g., through Borg) they add submodules with URLs without the .git suffix; meanwhile other submodules I add have the .git suffix (e.g., if I add them by copying the canonical URL from the GitHub page).

I wonder if there was a reason to omit the suffix and, just possibly, would it be possible to add them?

(Interestingly, https://emacsmirror.net/ seems to include the suffix)

tarsius commented 1 month ago

I intentionally stopped using the .git suffix. It isn't necessary; it has been optional on Github and Gitlab from the start, and they are not going to stop supporting that. The benefit of not using the optional suffix is that the stripped urls are valid for both git and browsers. For example one can browse-url on these urls, without then having to edit the initial input.

darkfeline commented 1 month ago

For what it's worth, it appears that the .git URLs redirect to the Web page (I assume that it didn't used to do that), so they work with browse-url as well.

I consider the .git URLs to be canonical, so I prefer to use them (for Git, at least). I understand that most people, possibly including you, don't care about this kind of trivial detail. That's fine; I thought I should try and ask.

Feel free to close this if you feel this isn't worth your time, though if you are willing to discuss or change your mind, I'm all for it.

tarsius commented 1 month ago

I consider the .git URLs to be canonical, so I prefer to use them (for Git, at least). I understand that most people, possibly including you, don't care about this kind of trivial detail. That's fine; I thought I should try and ask.

I do care about such trivial details, it's just that in this case the trivial detail I care about is to not use a needlessly complicated url, over using the canonical url.

Feel free to close this if you feel this isn't worth your time, though if you are willing to discuss or change your mind, I'm all for it.

Thanks. I don't think having a conversation about it will do much good. It's a topic similar to tabs vs. spaces, or rebase vs. "you shall never rewrite history", I suppose.