[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [MERGE REQUEST] unify various commands around a
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [MERGE REQUEST] unify various commands around arch_fqvsn_from_tree_and_input
Thu, 20 May 2004 13:21:07 +1000
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 12:50, Miles Bader wrote:
> Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
> > Yeah, it's ugly. Valid revision names are always considered to be
> > revisions, but I believe it's possible to express any file path so that
> > it's not a valid revision. For example, a directory named
> > "address@hidden/cat--branch--1.0--patch-3" could be referred to as
> > "./address@hidden/cat--branch--1.0--patch-3", which isn't valid.
> Yeah; I would be perfectly happy if using directory names required a
> magic syntax. E.g., for doing a delta against the directory FOO,
> something really magic like `dir:FOO' (which has the advantage that it's
> clearly not a normal filename), or `./FOO' (which is somewhat compatible
> -- we'd probably want to accept just `.' as a special case for the
> latter too).
> Of course there's always that annoying backward compatibility thing...
I don't see the issue: the grammar is not ambiguous: first it tries
archive paths, then file paths. If you have a file path which is also a
archive path, just prepend ./ to it, which is not valid for any
component of an archive path.
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [MERGE REQUEST] unify various commands around arch_fqvsn_from_tree_and_input, Colin Walters, 2004/05/20