I agree with Greg on this. I'd like to throw in that whatever scheme
you come up with for using in externals should probably be usable from
the command line client anywhere a URL is expected as well. This would
really improve the UI of svn. This does mean that you can't use
repository relative schemes that look like regular paths since the
client need to be able to distinguish a path to a wc from a (relative)
path to a repository.
Michael
On Jan 26, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 14:02, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Good, I think general consensus is that all 3 forms drawn from
>> RFC2396 are
>> acceptable - so we can split the controversial repository relative
>> discussion off into a seperate discussion.
>
> Big party pooper here:
>
> I think the forms drawn from RFC2396 are terribly user-unfriendly, and
> rely on people memorizing a map from obscure leading punctuation to
> semantics.
>
> Relative URLs in the context of the web are fairly user-friendly
> because
> there is no distinction between "the site" and "the repository". So a
> link to "/path" is pretty clearly site-relative. We don't have that
> luxury.
>
> So I'm -0.5 on the RFC2396 forms. I recommend making everything very
> explicit, using keywords like "site", "repos", and "scheme" at at the
> beginning of the externals (possibly in all-caps in hopes of
> distinguishing the keywords from user path elements, although of course
> user path elements can be in all-caps as well).
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 26 20:30:48 2005