"B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@red-bean.com> writes:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?F=E9liciano?= Matias <feliciano.matias@free.fr> writes:
> > So svn use file:// for Subversion repository only. Mozilla and other
> > browser use file:// for all files. If the file can not be printed it
> > prompt you to save the file.
> > This is not a big problem if a subversion repository hold in one big
> > file (somethink like "repos.svn").
> > In this case, a browse get a mime-type like "svn-repository" and load
> > the apropriate plugin (if any) which in turn display the repository.
> >
> > And what about this little problem :
> >
> > $ svnadmin create /var/svn/repos
> >
> > Now what does mean "file:///var/svn/repos/README" or
> > "file:///var/svn/repos/hooks/hooks/post-commit" ?
> >
> > It depend on the client.
> >
> > Subversion introduce a file:// use which is incompatible with the
> > standard file:// . It's not an extension of file://. It's "only"
> > incompatible.
>
> <snip>
>
> OK. Now I get your point. Do you really think this is a big problem?
Has it pinched me in the past when I wasn't at a pinnacle of personal
alertness? Sure. Big problem, no.
> It seems to me to be a matter of preference. Is anyone else confused
> by this?
I imagine that it can be confusing. I also envision a day when there
exists a kernel module that allows one to `mount', if but read-only, a
Subversion repository. In that case, file:// would do the right
thing in lynx or Mozilla.
I hate to say it, but I'm +1 on changing file:// to our own registered
(or practically-registered-by-way-of-unique-use) protocol scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 30 16:57:11 2002