Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Git remote helpers to implement smart transports.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Sverre Rabbelier [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I don't see how what you are talking about is any different. With the
mapping the executable of the alternative implementation still needs
to have a different name, no?

Sure, but please search for "second class citizen" in my message.

Also "extra level of indication".

I do not think "remote-curl" was the best name, and hindsight tells me
that "remote-walker" might have been a better name (it tells us how it
does it more clearly).

And I do not at all mind making the current hard-coded mapping from
http:// to remote-walker to an external table look-up, perhaps something
that can be controlled by .git/config, with a built-in default that is
hard-coded like the way we have now.

After all my main objection is against closing the door to others by one
particular implementation squating on "remote-http" name and refusing the
use of that nice, authoritative-sounding name by others.