Max Bowsher wrote:
> A free-form human-targeted description, and the repository basename, are
> rather different things.
> I don't like the idea of blurring the distinction between the two,
> because it opens the door for people to write code that assumes the
> value can be used as an URL component, which would not always be true.
> Also, anyone writing something to view the an enumeration of the
> repositories under a SVNParentPath, then has to jump through unnecessary
> hoops to work out whether there was a description configured for a
> repository, or if it's just a repetition of its basename.
> If it's desired that the repository basename be available to XSLT
> presentation layers, then let us make it available using a new element
> or attribute. I feel this would be far cleaner than overriding an
> existing concept with an additional meaning.
That seems fair. (Though, it's not used only for XSLT; the regular ol' HTML
display uses repo_name, too.)
>> It is already the case that, where
>> SvnReposName is not provided, the default URL for an SVNParentPath-included
>> URL has as its basename the basename of the repository directory on-disk.
> I am confused. SVNReposName is solely concerned with presentational
> output. What does it have to do with URLs at all?
Sorry. I was trying to draw an analogy here, but I realize now it's a
really bad one.
>> I notice, though, that there was another (much larger) patch around this
>> same topic. I think that patch takes the more thorough approach. I see
>> also that David Anderson was +1 on that patch, too, even claiming he'd usher
>> it into the codebase soonish.
> I've been less than thorough at following the list of late. Could
> someone give a pointer?
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Mon Feb 26 18:03:31 2007