On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 14:32, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>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.
I guess it depends on whether we're more worried about changing the
protocol to break a non-conformant client, or changing the whole system
to break a script or other tool which passes non-canonicalized paths to
the command-line client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 15 21:49:38 2005