Re: Bug: IP address bogusly interpreted as peg revision

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jens Seidel <jensseidel_at_users.sf.net> wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:45:56PM -0500, Troy Curtis Jr wrote:
>> Behavior if we always use '@' for no peg specified:
>> "." "@"
>> "._at_BASE" "@BASE"
>> "foo///bar" "foo/bar@"
>> "http://a//b////" "http://a/b@"
>> "http://a///b@27" "http://a/b@27"
>> "http://a/b//@COMMITTED" "http://a/b@COMMITTED"
>> "foo///@bar_at_HEAD" "foo/@bar_at_HEAD"
>> "foo@///bar" "foo@/bar@"
>> "foo_at_HEAD///bar" "foo_at_HEAD/bar@"
>> Adding:
>> "svn+ssh://svn@10.0.1.1" "svn+ssh://svn@10.0.1.1"
>> "svn+ssh://svn@10.0.1.1/" "svn+ssh://svn@10.0.1.1@"
>> "svn+ssh://svn@10.0.1.1@" "svn+ssh://svn@10.0.1.1@"
>
> A stupid question: What would happen if there exists filenames with "@"
> in it? Could there be a filename conflict if @ is added?
>

No because the peg revision is always stripped off before the target
is treated as a url or path, which is the crux of the problem. In the
trailing slash case, where it gets removed during canonicalization,
@10.0.1.1 gets removed because subversion thinks it's a peg revision
and the resulting peg revision is not valid.

> PS: There is no longer any need for CC:ing me. I'm currently subscribed.
>

The standard method is typically to "Reply All", so if you don't want
a separate cced message you have to do what you just did here and
remove your name from the reply-to field :-).

Troy

> Jens
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>

-- 
"Beware of spyware. If you can, use the Firefox browser." - USA Today
Download now at http://getfirefox.com
Registered Linux User #354814 ( http://counter.li.org/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org