I think we were going to move to that scheme (store the full URL in
the entry for "."), and just haven't gotten around to it yet. No
reason not to, though.
Greg Stein <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:54:55PM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > Greg Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Agreed, but you should think in terms of URLs rather than "absolute paths".
> > > Absolute with respect to what? That's an oxymoron, of course... absolute
> > > means it isn't relative. But the point here is that "/products/..." is NOT
> > > absolute. "http://www.lyra.org/products/glorb/..." *is* absolute.
> > Ah, yes, of course. There's a file in the SVN/ administrative dir
> > called `repository'. I believe it will simply contain a URL to the
> > webdav server: "http://www.lyra.org" or whatever. Meanwhile, the
> > various `entries' files contain paths within the filesystem such as
> > "/products/glorb/foo.c". The client uses the `repository' file to
> > open an ra-session, as you suggest, and from there uses the paths
> > within the `entries' files to drive editors.
> > So I think we're in agreement on this one. :)
> Why separate that stuff? Why not just store the URL? The repository_URL
> passed to RA->open is simply the URL associated with the topmost, common
> The separate "repository" and "path" is following CVS's pattern for no good
> reason... it is an artificial separation.
> "http://www.lyra.org/products/glorb/foo.c" is the path. I'd say that we
> simply store it that way.
> This will be especially important if we end up with a file that comes from a
> different repository. I'm not sure whether you store the URL for a subdir
> in "./SVN/entries" or in "subdir/SVN/entries", but we definitely mix
> repositories on a per-directory basis. If the URL is stored in ".", then
> they definitely have to be mixable.
> [ hmm. it appears that you store ancestry for a subdir in "." ]
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006