Re: svn_opt_parse_path peg revision inconsistency

Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> writes:
> Looking through the that allowed one to protect a @ in the path or
> URL, do you recall why the code results in a different revision type
> for
>
> foo@ [base or head depending upon path or URL]
>
> versus
>
> foo [always unspecified]

No, I don't remember any particular reason. That is, I can understand
why, *if* one is going to make foo@ have an explicit revision at all,
that it should be BASE for a local path and HEAD for a url. But I
don't understand why an explicit revision is necessary in the first
place -- which I gather is the question you're asking :-).

Not sure what I was thinking. If the tests pass with unspecified
revision, then +1 on your change.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 18 03:02:30 2007