Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Julian Foad wrote:
>>kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>>>Does anyone else have thoughts about whether the server should demand
>>>that the client speak to it in canonical paths always?
>>
>>An advantage of being strict is that it leaves room for us to extend the syntax
>>in future by assigning meanings to paths that are currently non-canonical. For
>>example, we might one day want to assign a meaning to the double-slash, as in
>>current discussions about svn:external. If we allow that now as being just a
>>sloppy equivalent of a single slash, then we shut that door.
>
> This doesn't work, since the command line client canonicalizes its
> arguments.
This does work, since the client software that would talk this extended
protocol would not be today's client. I'm talking about future extensions to
the client-server protocol which would involve modifying both the client and
the server.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 15 20:33:54 2005