[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Windows hook extensions: documentation inconsistent with code

From: Ryan Schmidt <subversion-2006Q1_at_ryandesign.com>
Date: 2006-03-26 17:12:15 CEST

On Mar 26, 2006, at 17:03, Darko Miletic wrote:

>> 2. Which is the correct extension: ".com" or ".cmd", or are both
>> valid?
>> Either the book or the Subversion code or both should be updated
>> accordingly.
> As of windows NT executable extensions are defined in PATHEXT
> environment variable. All extensions defined there will be treated as
> executables by OS. Common content of PATHEXT looks like this:
> .com extension in general is not used so much these days.
> .bat and .cmd are extensions for windows batch files.
> vbs, vbe and js, jse are for vb script/javascript files that can be
> executed with windows scripting engine.
> .wsh/wsf are Windows Script Host control files again related to
> windows
> scripting engine.
> So in fact if you need some other scripting language added to shell
> just
> add extension to PATHEXT and assign extension with appropriate
> executable.
> Importance of PATHEXT in fact is big. For example to be able to have
> executables with extension cgi and execute them with IIS you must add
> .cgi extension to PATHEXT, otherwise it does not work.

So it sounds Subversion should be rewritten to use PATHEXT, and the
book should be rewritten to reflect that this is the case?

Are there any situations in which PATHEXT could be empty or
inappropriate, such that Subversion would still need a fall-back to a
hard-coded extension list like it does now?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 26 17:12:56 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.