On 2012.7.28 12:30 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> I didn't know about that. I don't know what your SVN backwards compat >> requirements are, but if that behavior goes back far enough in SVN to satisfy >> you folks, then canonicalize_url() should fall back to >> SVN::_Core::svn_path_canonicalize(). > > svn_path_canonicalize() has been usable for this kind of thing since > SVN 1.1, possibly earlier. Great! Then _canonicalize_url_ourselves() can probably be replaced with that. Just take my advice and do it after 1.7 is working and the code is ready for canonicalization. >> But try it at the end of the patch >> series. The code has to be prepared for canonicalization first. Then how it >> actually does it can be improved. > > Since this part of the series is not tested with SVN 1.7, this is > basically adding dead code, right? That could be avoided by > reordering the changes to keep "canonicalize_url" as-is until later in > the series when the switchover is safe. I would suggest that worrying whether a few lines of code are introduced now or 10 patches later in the same branch which is all going to be merged in one go (and retesting the patches after it) is not the most important thing. The code needs humans looking over it and deciding if canonicalizations were missed or applied inappropriately. Or hey, work on that path and url object idea that makes a lot of real code mess go away. -- ROCKS FALL! EVERYONE DIES! http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html