On Jan 5, 2006, at 17:06, FG wrote:
> One would have to be very careful on where they put the revision/
> mine strings because some people / systems require multiple ending
> extensions (example - .tar.gz) to be read as well.
I would tend to not even think about that problem right now. With the
current behavior, if a user wants to extract files from, say,
foo.tar.gz.r42, she has to either manually tell the extraction
program what kind of compression and packaging was used or rename it
so it ends with .tar.gz. With the new proposed behavior, the user can
still do one of those two things, so the new behavior is not worse
for multiple-extension files. The behavior is much better, though,
for single-extension files, so I still consider the suggested change
a good one.
Once it's implemented, then there could be some discussion about
improvements that could be made to better support multi-extension
files. One could, of course, hard-code a list of such extensions, but
that's probably a bad idea.
> Would it spoil the names (make them that much harder to find) if
> the extra tag is added to the front of the file name (example -
> r34.foo.tar.gz, mine.foo.tar.gz)? My argument against this method
> is that now all of the conflicting files are spread out in the
> directory based on revision numbers / "mine".
Yeah, that's atrocious. I wouldn't do that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 6 23:08:10 2006