kfogel@collab.net writes:
> Otherwise, it looks good to me. No disagreement with the overall
> direction of the change (and that's even though it conflicts with some
> local changes of mine for issue #1195! :-) ).
By the way, I didn't mean to shut off discussion about the potentially
controversial portion of Brian Denny's patch: he changes
svn_path_condense_targets() to handle URLs by treating them as
absolute paths. He then wondered whether this might be a problem if
there's a file whose name looks like a URL.
I think this is nothing to worry about. If someone is weird enough to
name a file "http://foo.bar.baz/qux", they get what they deserve, and
anyway can work around it by saying "./http://foo...".
But I'd feel more comfortable if at least one other person posted to
say they too were okay with the change to svn_path_condense_targets
:-). It's a subtle enough thing that there might be some unfortunate
consequence we're missing.
Btw, Brian, when I wrote:
> The new doc string implies that it is an error to mix URLs and
> non-URLs (as it probably should be). But I didn't see anything that
> checks for this case in the new code?
I don't remember why I thought it should be an error to mix URLs and
non-URLs. It doesn't seem like such a problem now. Did you intend
them to be mixable?
In any case, either the doc string or the code would need to change.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Mar 29 06:32:55 2003