[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Supporting non-XML-safe pathnames

From: John Szakmeister <john_at_szakmeister.net>
Date: 2004-11-24 21:42:25 CET

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2004, at 9:47 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
>> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>>
>>>> Since Subversion shouldn't limit the OS capabilities arbitrarily,
>>>
>>>
>>> ...why not?
>>
>>
>> Because there's no compelling reason not to support it?
>
>
> Sure there is. It adds complexity, and I maintain that it's a feature
> that no linux user cares about.

FWIW, I *completely* agree.

>> Because if we
>> were in the business of limiting OS capabilities, we'd be catering to
>> the lowest common denominator of support across across all known
>> supported OSes, which means we'd be trying to case-protect stuff on
>> Linux for the sake of Windows users, dropping symlink support,
>> dropping svn:executable support, etc?
>
>
> The difference here is features like svn:executable and versioned
> symlinks are things that linux users have been screaming for. I've
> never, in my entire life, heard a linux user get annoyed that win32
> doesn't support control characters in filenames.
>
> I think our features should cater to specific user demands; there's no
> reason to bend over backwards to support essentially unknown OS features.

Agreed. Why add a feature, and complicate anything (even if it is easy
to do) if there is little or no payoff? I'll never make use of this
feature, not even once.

>> But if the only concern you have is that we add a little
>> complexity (which, by the way, would be entirely contained to the
>> existing code at the fringes of XML transport), that's just the cost
>> of almost any feature.
>>
>
> Heh, you guys know (better than I do) exactly how complicated this
> change would be. Perhaps it's just a teeny-tiny amount of effort and
> complexity, with no measurable impact on performance. But then again, I
> think the result is a just teeny-tiny feature than nobody will notice.
> So it's essentially impossible to weight pros vs. cons here, since both
> sides require a microscope to view. :-)
>
> So I withdraw my objection. I just wonder if there aren't bigger fish
> to fry.

Personally, I think we should put this and not allow control characters.
 I just don't see the benefit. *shrug*

-John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 24 21:44:50 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.