Hi, Brandon Williams wrote: > On 08/09, Jeff King wrote: >> One interesting thing about url-encoding is that it's not one-to-one. >> This case could also be %2F, which is a different file (on a >> case-sensitive filesystem). I think "%20" and "+" are similarly >> interchangeable. >> >> If we were decoding the filenames, that's fine. The round-trip is >> lossless. >> >> But that's not quite how the new code behaves. We encode the input and >> then check to see if it matches an encoding we previously performed. So >> if our urlencode routines ever change, this will subtly break. >> >> I don't know how much it's worth caring about. We're not that likely to >> change the routines ourself (though certainly a third-party >> implementation would need to know our exact url-encoding decisions). > > This is exactly the reason why I wanted to get some opinions on what the > best thing to do here would be. I _think_ the best thing would probably > be to write a specific routine to do the conversion, and it wouldn't > even have to be all that complex. Basically I'm just interested in > converting '/' characters so that things no longer behave like > nested directories. First of all, I think the behavior with this patch is already much better than the previous status quo. I'm using the patch now and am very happy with it. Second, what if we store the pathname in config? We already store the URL there: [submodule "plugins/hooks"] url = https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/hooks So we could (as a followup patch) do something like [submodule "plugins/hooks"] url = https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/hooks gitdirname = plugins%2fhooks and use that for lookups instead of regenerating the directory name. What do you think? Thanks, Jonathan
