Stefan Küng wrote:
> Robert Roessler wrote:
>
>> As I said, "by observation" - perhaps I should have specified "of the
>> program's behavior". In any case, that is my point - for the patterns
>> specified above, the if at line 274 will give the same result as the
>> if complex at line 264. We can also mention that the "I->size() && " is
>
> No. It's not the same string comparison. One is with 'n', the other
> isn't. The * is needed to include subfolders.
To quote someone who is well-known around here, "Look again"... :)
AFAICT (and it's not *my* code), the compare at line 274 is exactly
equivalent to the compare at line 269 (part of the referred-to "if
complex" at line 264) - for Include patterns path\* and path\ .
Once the prefix substring str has been pulled from the front of the
particular Include entry, it no longer contains the trailing * ... which
makes the 'n' compares at line 269 and line 274 equivalent.
*Unless* I am still missing something here, this just says that [with
the current code] path\* will match the same paths as path\ ... which,
even if true, isn't a big deal.
I actually am still interested in *why* I can't realize all that extra
efficiency of ONLY processing ONE directory tree on my entire system for
TSVN overlays... ;)
Finally, given the difficulties with documenting and/or implementing
TSVNCache's current approach to Include/Exclude logic, perhaps Apache's
solution might be of interest: allow the user to supply the test
ordering semantics vis-a-vis the Order directive from htaccess files?
Robert Roessler
robertr@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 21 21:00:06 2007