Possible misstep regarding peg-revision support for externals definitions

When discussion how to handle the compatibility issues inherent in suddenly
claiming peg revision support for externals definitions, I suggested that we
rearrange the order of the URL and WC-PATH arguments in those definitions.
Besides correcting what I've often felt was a misordering in the first place
(because it was opposite that which is used for 'checkout' and 'export'),
and because detecting the changed ordering is as easy as asking
svn_path_is_url() on the paths, it seemed like a great idea.

At the time.

I have one small concern now: have we inadvertantly further complicated the
work required to support relative URLs in externals definitions? Maybe not
-- I mean, maybe the mapping is:

   local-path URL => old-style non-peg-revision-supporting syntax
   URL local-path => new-style peg-revision-supprting syntax
   relative-path relative-path => new-style peg-revision syntax with
      the first argument being a relative URL

Actually, now that I type that out, my concerns are going away. Yeah, we
can simply say that if *neither* path operand looks like a URL, the first
*is* a URL that happens to be relative (and happens to support the peg
revision syntax).

Okay. So, nevermind. Move along. Nothing to see here.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand