sussman_at_gmail.com wrote on 11/05/2008 11:50:59 AM:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
> > In IRC yesterday, gstein said you were going to use this format:
> > path;REV
> > I believe he said it was because the ? causes caching proxies to not
> Yeah, my initial patch tried to use a semicolon, but it ended up not
> working at all... there were all sorts of weird interferences, 404
> errors, and things I couldn't explain. So gstein suggested that going
> back to standard query syntax was OK.
> Even if query-strings aren't cached by caching proxies, I'm not
> particularly worried -- the main advantage of proxy caches are that we
> want them to kick in when doing checkouts, updates, etc. The syntax
> we're talking about here is basically for humans (or simple CGI
> scripts) to use, as a matter of user-friendliness. The ra_serf is
> still going to use the old !svn/bc/REV/path syntax to GET each file
> during an update. That's when the caching proxy really matters.
For clarification, which syntax will be "blessed" for use? The
query string one, the old style !svn one, both?
Received on 2008-11-05 19:18:52 CET