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

Re: [PATCH] ISSUE #3193 Fix peg revision parsing for CLI repository root relative urls.

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:15:47 -0400

Troy, FWIW, I think Julian's approach is best too.


"Troy Curtis Jr" <troycurtisjr_at_gmail.com> writes:
>> From the point of view of parsing command-line syntax, I think removing the
>> peg revision specifier comes logically before canonicalising the rest of the
>> argument. Therefore, may I recommend not making the
>> svn_opt__arg_canonicalize_path()/_url() functions "cope with" a peg
>> revision, but leave them as they were, to operate on just a path or URL.
>> Instead, make your split_arg_at_peg_revision() function semi-public (maybe
>> called "svn_opt__arg_split_at_peg") and use it where previously the
>> *_args_to_target_array*() and other functions did their own parsing.
>> If your split_arg_at_peg_revision() will return the peg string with the "@"
>> still on it, then it could represent "no peg" with either NULL or the empty
>> string. I suggest it should never return NULL but rather the empty string
>> when there is no peg, so that callers can simply re-concatenate the peg
>> without checking for NULL. This seems a reasonable way to go for now, given
>> that (as you point out) some client functions still want to add the peg back
>> on and then take it off again later. In the long term, the clean way to
>> organise it would be for this initial splitting to pass the peg back
>> separately (without its "@") and for the path and the peg to be passed
>> around separately thereafter. But there's no need to go into that now.
>> That seems to make it all simpler. Does that make sense and is there
>> anything else I could help with? It would be great to see an update when you
>> have time. Thanks.
> That would certainly work, I was just trying to keep from having to
> put another implementation in the relative url parsing block of the
> code. I think that is an excellent compromise between my patch and
> Karl's suggestions. I'll work up the patch and send it in when I get
> a chance.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-23 19:16:00 CEST

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.