Re: users.txt patch

[Benoit SIGOURE]

On Oct 24, 2007, at 12:28 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:

> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Because the CVS mirror at cvs.sv.gnu.org is no longer maintained:
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2007-09/msg00137.html
>
> To help improve our advertisement of this, I disabled the CVS web
> browsing and access visible from
> <https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnulib>, by using the
> administrative interface.  I also installed this change to
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/> (further proofreading welcome):
>
> Index: gnulib.html
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /web/gnulib/gnulib/gnulib.html,v
> retrieving revision 1.13
> retrieving revision 1.16
> diff -p -u -r1.13 -r1.16
> --- gnulib.html 22 Oct 2007 21:41:43 -0000      1.13
> +++ gnulib.html 23 Oct 2007 22:22:18 -0000      1.16
> @@ -57,14 +57,20 @@ You can also view the <a href="MODULES.h
>  anonymous <a href='http://git.or.cz/'>Git</a>, using the following
>  shell command:</p>
>
> -<pre><samp>git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/gnulib.git
> +<pre><samp>git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/gnulib
>  </samp></pre>

Is there any reason why this has changed?  I learned (the hard way)  
that for bare public repositories, it's better to stick to what turns  
out to be more than a naming convention of `project.git'.  I don't  
know if these issues are only related to dumb protocols (HTTP*) or if  
they also affect the Git protocol.  I can't find the relevant thread  
on the Git ML but the thing is that it seems that several tools rely  
on the fact that a repository name of the form `foo.git' implies that  
it's a bare repository (and thus it doesn't need to look for a  
nested .git directory).

--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part