On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:45:39AM -0600, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
>
> > > Now it does working copies, and URLS. However, it doesn't do a FILE
> > > PATH to a Subversion repository. Should it do that also?
> >
> > If you mean 'svn log /some/path/repo/db', then probably not. In
> > general, svn commands act on URLs or working copy paths, there is no
> > reason for log to be different.
>
> Exactly. We, of course, know that the user *meant* to type:
>
> svn log file:///some/path/repo
If the computer can know unambiguously what the user meant to type,
then it should do what the user meant to do. In this case, I think it
can. There's never going to be a situation where a local filesystem
path to a repo directory is ambiguous with a path to a working copy.
Therefore, when we get /some/path/repo, we ought to just stick
"file://" in front of it and proceed - for all svn commands.
We should _not_ do that for /some/path/repo/db, because that path
knows something about the internal structure of a repository.
I can make a case either way for /some/path/repo/trunk/src/main.c.
zw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:06 2006