[dflock]

Same as `git clone <repo>` - it downloads a local copy of the repo into a folder called ./TinyClock, which it will create if it doesn't exist.

[unwind]

One (IMO reasonable) objection/confusion might be that the the repo URL is the exact same as the web page, i.e. the actual posted article.

When coming from git/Mercurial/subversion etc as I do, it is at least mildly weird that the Bazaar repo address is the same as the address of a web document. The two objects are not (at least in my world) the same, so why should they share URIs?

Edit: deduped.

[Karellen]

Because sending different content based on the content-type the user-agent asks for, e.g. with the "Accept:" header, has explicitly been part of the HTTP spec since version 1.1 in 1997?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2068#section-12

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2068#section-14.1

See also https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Content_ne...

(FWIW - I don't know if that's how `bzr` does this, but it might, and the concept is 25 years old now.)

Edit: s/different content/different representations of the same resource/

[unwind]

True of course, didn't think about that. I'm not a web developer. :) Still think it's weird and kind of against my feeling for the spirit of a URI, but that's just me. Thanks.

[easrng]

You can git clone normal GitHub URLs without the .git at the end too.