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

Re: Older versions through http-repository browsing

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-08-23 22:14:17 CEST

"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
> Nonono. Please *do not* do this to public URL namespace. It's one
> thing to bind revision numbers to URLs in our command-line client
> syntax for the sake of UI and path/rev association simplicity (and
> yes, remember that this URL@REV syntax is not Subversion-wide -- it's
> only in our one little commandline client). But this change has no
> place trickling into mod_dav_svn.

Uh, why not make any such syntax Subversion-wide? I mean, this
is... Subversion, after all :-).

> I much prefer the !svn/rev/NNNNN/path syntax, because besides not
> destroying the integrity of our existing URL namespace (what happens
> if you have a file with '@[0-9]+' at the end of it under version
> control?),

Like I said, the same quoting mechanism would work as we currently use
for the client: tack on an empty "@", which means "@HEAD", or if you
want a particular revision, tack on "@NNN".

The quoting is a *solved* problem. That remains true if we start
using this syntax in more places.

> it allows for relative URLs in HTML documents served
> directory from mod_dav_svn to continue to work. An index.html with a
> URL of http://.../!svn/4500/index.html can reference "./logo.png" and
> the browser will know to use http://.../!svn/4500/logo.png to fetch
> that image.

The breaking of relative URLs is a valid objection, yeah. Thanks, I'd
forgotten about that one.

I do think browsers and clients need to support the same syntax. It
would just be ridiculous for people not to be able to cut-and-paste
between the two contexts.

This would imply that servers too should support the trailing-"@"
syntax, but that there should also be *another* syntax available to
both clients and servers (which is yucky, I freely confess, but maybe
not as yucky as not having the feature).

If we're going to go with a prefix syntax, in order to support
relative URLs, what is the quoting mechanism? Is it to specify HEAD
or a revnum in a prior prefix, like this?:


This would access either HEAD or r1729 of a file whose literal path is

Do we want "!svn", or maybe "!rev" to be clearer? Or "@rev"??


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 23 23:14:14 2005

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.