push over sftp

[Jan Hudec]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 19:56:45 +0100, Zbynek Winkler wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> 
> >>It may be more "correct" to use "sftp://" but it's also more
> >>complicated (and lot's longer due to the absolut patch requirement) to
> >>write on a command line.
> >>   
> >>
> >As to the later, there actually is a way around this, though it's not
> >standartized. In fact it has two variants:
> >
> >Variant1:
> >   sftp://host/dir-in-home
> >   sftp://host//home/user/dir-in-home
> >
> >Variant2:
> >   sftp://host/~/dir-in-home
> >   sftp://host/home/user/dir-in-home
> >
> >Mercurial does use the first, though it uses ssh:// schema, since it 
> >executes
> >it's own server at the other end.
> > 
> >
> Well, the first part of Variant2 is actually a special case of Variant1. 
> See the discussion at 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mercurial&m=112687664200467&w=2 or
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mercurial&m=112690738304548&w=2

Especially the secureshell uri draft
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/secsh/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-03.txt
mentioned there might be interesting. Using it is probably most justifiable
approach. Basically it says:

sftp://host/dir-in-home
sftp://host/%2fhome/user/dir-in-home

Since the home directory case is quite a lot more common, I'd vote for it
being the shorter and simpler one.

Using unencoded / could be accepted.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051103/94695bce/attachment.pgp