On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Julian Foad wrote:
> 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.
>
I think we'll want to choose some syntax that doesn't get destroyed by
canonicalization (according to the current rules). Also, we have a release
version whihc would break in this case (referring to the svnserve fixes in
1.1.2).
I agree in general, but not in this particular case. See also my reply to
Karl.
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 15 22:02:54 2005