> If you can point out a way to do that, I will implement it. And if you are available to help, it will happen faster.
> It could also make for a nice first patch if you're interested in that
> I'm curious where you got all these incorrect notions?
> it also seems like a ridiculously small and cosmetic problem
A lot of your comments come across snarky and backhandedly hostile.
Regarding the tcp:// vs https:// -- I think the parent comment is pointing out that Docker seems to have just made up a new address prefix which is used nowhere else and certainly is not standard. Even if it's a "ridiculously small and cosmetic problem", it should be fixed, and probably never should of been (perhaps hinting at the comment about slowing down to think instead of focusing constantly on new features and rapid fire). If it's the only small cosmetic problem, probably wouldn't be an issue... but add up many, and well...
Regarding the constant comments to commit -- I completely understand wanting others to put their ideas and critiques into PR's... but you have to see where it can come off a little condescending. Your users, of which not all are engineers, are offering critiques which will make your platform better for all, and your responses imply you will not consider any of them as valid unless they are in code, and even then, it's only a maybe.
The flag is tcp:// for historical reasons. In earlier versions Docker did not use an http api, but a simple custom rpc protocol. Therefore it would have not made sense to use http:// . Then, when we introduced the http api, we decided to keep the flag for reverse compatibility (after all, as far as the user is concerned the functionality is the same: point to this network address, and you can control the daemon). We never really thought about it after that. I believe you're the first to complain about it. So, again - if you open an issue we will address it.
On suggesting commits: my intention is really not to be condescending, but to seek opportunity to recruit new contributors :) I even specified "if not, that's ok" to emphasize that. I have found that frustration about something in Docker has been the best source of new, valuable contributions. I'm just trying to catalyze that. And yes, I absolutely agree that non-code contributions are just as valuable as code contributions. Even taking the time to file a bug report, or suggest an improvement, is a contribution of your time and hugely appreciated. If you got anything else from my message, it was not intended.
I did not complain about it, the Parent post did, I simply clarified a point you seemed to not understand. But now that makes it twice it's been brought up.
> So, again - if you open an issue we will address it.
I do believe it's been brought to your attention here sufficiently for it to be addressed without my involvement.
> It could also make for a nice first patch if you're interested in that
> I'm curious where you got all these incorrect notions?
> it also seems like a ridiculously small and cosmetic problem
A lot of your comments come across snarky and backhandedly hostile.
Regarding the tcp:// vs https:// -- I think the parent comment is pointing out that Docker seems to have just made up a new address prefix which is used nowhere else and certainly is not standard. Even if it's a "ridiculously small and cosmetic problem", it should be fixed, and probably never should of been (perhaps hinting at the comment about slowing down to think instead of focusing constantly on new features and rapid fire). If it's the only small cosmetic problem, probably wouldn't be an issue... but add up many, and well...
Regarding the constant comments to commit -- I completely understand wanting others to put their ideas and critiques into PR's... but you have to see where it can come off a little condescending. Your users, of which not all are engineers, are offering critiques which will make your platform better for all, and your responses imply you will not consider any of them as valid unless they are in code, and even then, it's only a maybe.