Max Bowsher wrote:
> I still feel strongly that we need a repos-root-relative externals
> capability.
>
> It's a rather horrible design to require hardcoding the served path of a
> repository into the repository, when there is no real reason to do so.
+1. Well said. If you accept that it must mean "within this repository" and
not allow navigating out of the repository with "..", then I think the case has
been made for including that facility. Now we only (!) need to agree on a syntax.
I can now see repos-root-relative externals as being one of the primary types,
along with absolute and dir-relative. Then comes site-relative, and finally,
in my mind, scheme-relative.
I don't think I've seen a convincing argument for supporting scheme-relative
references. (I can't think of a good scenario in which people want their
access method for an externally hosted repository to track the access method
for their main repository.) Because the syntax for them conflicts with SVK and
also may be confused with UNC path syntax, I feel it is probably best not to
support them, despite initially saying otherwise.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 26 03:25:30 2005