Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] connect: document why we sometimes call get_port after get_host_and_port

Torsten Bögershausen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

quoted

  			get_host_and_port(&ssh_host, &port);
  +			/* get_host_and_port may not return a port
even when
+			 * there is one: In the [host:port]:path case,
+			 * get_host_and_port is called with "[host:port]" and
+			 * returns "host:port" and NULL.
+			 * In that specific case, we still need to split the
+			 * port. */

Is it worth to mention that this case is "still supported legacy" ?

If it's worth mentioning anywhere, it seems to me it would start with
urls.txt?

Mike

I don't know.
urls.txt is for Git users, and connect.c is for Git developers.
urls.txt does not mention that Git follows any RFC when parsing the
URLS', it doesn't claim to be 100% compliant.
Even if it makes sense to do so, as many user simply expect Git to accept
RFC compliant URL's, and it makes the development easier, if there is
an already
written specification, that describes all the details.
The parser is not 100% RFC compliant, one example:
- old-style usgage like "git clone [host:222]:~/path/to/repo are supported

Is it an option to fix get_host_and_port() so that it returns what
the caller expects even when it is given "[host:port]"?  When the
caller passes other forms like "host:port", it expects to get "host"
and "port" parsed out into two variables.  Why can't the caller
expect to see the same happen when feeding "[host:port]" to the
function?