Re: New canonicalization functions [was: Subversion Exception!]

Branko Čibej wrote:
> r1848943, for review. [...]

Woo hoo! Thanks, Brane.

Are you willing to add random-input testing for them?

Minor comments:
  * the 'relpath' one is not needed because, AFAIK, it's possible to canonicalize any relpath and we already do;
  * the non-canonical 'result' and scratch pool params are probably over-kill; a subjective judgment, I know, so just a suggestion.

-- 
- Julian