Comment 3 for bug 146715

I guess we have the same problem with sftp:// URIs now too. Although I think
technically URIs aren't supposed to be dependent on local configuration; if the
URI doesn't specify a port it then the standard port for that protocol should be
assumed. See e.g.
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-04>.

Anyway, in practice though this isn't what people expect for SSH transports,
because they're used to configuring aliases in ~/.ssh/config, so we probably
should just do what they expect.

So I guess we need to treat “port not specified” differently to “port is 22” for
sftp:// and bzr+ssh:// transports. (Taking care not to reintroduce bug 133965,
of course, which was fixed by treating those the same for all transports with
ports.)

I've got a branch that fixes this by simply not setting “default_port” for
bzr+ssh or sftp, I'll send it to the list shortly.

 assignee <email address hidden>