On May 14, 2009, at 4:19 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO he should use the exact same query string as was on the
>>> original
>>> URL. Anything else is guesswork, no?
>>
>> Er, this is tricky. Suppose I type in "http://host/some/dir?
>> p=x&r=y".
>>
>> This wil locate dir_at_p, then follow the directory back in time to
>> revision y (where it might exist at a different location).
>>
>> The children displayed in the output are therefore all being
>> displayed
>> at revision Y, and at some (possibly new) path. My first instinct
>> is
>> to point out that they should all therefore have the ?p=y bit
>> attached
>> to their hrefs, but this doesn't take into account the possibly new
>> parental path. :-/
>
> You're right, this is tricky. But I think the solution is as simple
> as
> behaving *literally* in the way we interpret the inputs semantically:
> respond to PATH?r=REV[&p=PEGREV] with a "301 Redirect" whose
> destination is
> the resolved, real location (path + rev) -- that is, REALPATH?
> p=PEGREV.
> From there, generate only entries links that carry the same p=PEGREV
> specifier.
I tend to agree with this, and will commit something along these lines
shortly. Are there any other technical problems with the patch?
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2262997
Received on 2009-05-14 23:23:10 CEST