Thanks.
(Gavin: note that this thread can be disregarded from a patch tracking
point of view.)
On 10/05/2010 05:16 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote:
> Yes Mike... please disregard this patch for now because no point in
> development without any requirement.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Prabhu GS
>
> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:01 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Are you saying, then, that you'd like us to disregard your patch for now?
>>
>> On 09/29/2010 08:50 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>> Sorry for the delayed response.
>>> Your point is very much a valid one, Mike. But since we used
>>> *re.match*, "perf" would not match "superfun". But your point really
>>> holds good when "super" would match "superfun" repo. Actually I was not
>>> aware of the -s option(thank you for that) while I coded this. I wanted
>>> the regex part only to match the like-repo names in the config. But now,
>>> this serves my purpose. I don't see any specific requirement from anyone
>>> for this regex part. I would like to do the further enhancements if it
>>> really is required... Thanks for the suggestions Mike :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Prabhu GS
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:23 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>> On 09/22/2010 09:07 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The svnperms.py script reads the svnperms.conf file, which needs the
>>>>> section rules for all the repos uniquely. This was quite tough when we
>>>>> have n number if repos. I wished that svnperms.py reads regex matches
>>>>> and applies the configuration rules and came up with this patch.
>>>>> Mid-way of my coding work, I came to know that -s switch would let us
>>>>> specify the section name explicitly, but not the regex thing.
>>>>> I modified the code to search for a matching section via regex, which
>>>>> might be really helpfull for certain cases.
>>>>> I have attached the log file and the patch file with this mail for
>>>>> review.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with this script, but won't your change break compatibility
>>>> with existing users of the script? Imagine that someone is using the script
>>>> today with 'svnperms.py -s perf', but their configuration file also has a
>>>> section called "[superfun]" (something that "perf" would match, albeit
>>>> incompletely. Will the new script, invoked the old way, read the wrong
>>>> configury?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should tie this change of interpretation to a new command-line
>>>> flag, perhaps a capitalized "s" (-S).
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2010-10-05 15:23:47 CEST