[I've changed the name of this thread, so people will know what it's
about.]
Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > > and the URL syntax it invents is bogus
> > > (/repos/svn/trunk/README may be a completely different resource
> > > at two different revs).
>
> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 15:49, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > (I'm not sure I understand the problem behind Greg's
> > last objection, but I'm sure he can explain it in more detail).
>
> We've talked about inventing a public URL syntax which includes a
> revision number, and we ruled out using ?rev=revnum. See
> <http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-06/0024.shtml>.
Thanks for tracking that down.
Well, we'll need *some* syntax for naming a path at a particular
revision. I'm okay with the "path@rev" syntax the command line client
has been using. It makes the class ".*@[0-9]+$" unavailable for
paths, but a similar objection would apply to any other character.
However, I have this feeling in the back of my mind that we've always
been somewhat tentative about the '@' syntax... Why is that? Am I
imagining things? Are we now ready to proclaim it the Official Way to
specify a revision in a Subversion URL?
Note that currently only the client interprets that syntax. If it's
going to be used by other applications (such as KDE), we'll need to
make the server aware of it as well. I don't see any reason why that
would be hard, but maybe I just haven't thought it through enough? :-)
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 5 00:26:10 2003