Thanks. (Gavin: note that this thread can be disregarded from a patch tracking point of view.)
On 10/05/2010 05:16 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote: > Yes Mike... please disregard this patch for now because no point in > development without any requirement. > > > Thanks & Regards > Prabhu GS > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:01 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> Are you saying, then, that you'd like us to disregard your patch for now? >> >> On 09/29/2010 08:50 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote: >>> Mike, >>> Sorry for the delayed response. >>> Your point is very much a valid one, Mike. But since we used >>> *re.match*, "perf" would not match "superfun". But your point really >>> holds good when "super" would match "superfun" repo. Actually I was not >>> aware of the -s option(thank you for that) while I coded this. I wanted >>> the regex part only to match the like-repo names in the config. But now, >>> this serves my purpose. I don't see any specific requirement from anyone >>> for this regex part. I would like to do the further enhancements if it >>> really is required... Thanks for the suggestions Mike :) >>> >>> >>> Prabhu GS >>> >>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:23 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>>> On 09/22/2010 09:07 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The svnperms.py script reads the svnperms.conf file, which needs the >>>>> section rules for all the repos uniquely. This was quite tough when we >>>>> have n number if repos. I wished that svnperms.py reads regex matches >>>>> and applies the configuration rules and came up with this patch. >>>>> Mid-way of my coding work, I came to know that -s switch would let us >>>>> specify the section name explicitly, but not the regex thing. >>>>> I modified the code to search for a matching section via regex, which >>>>> might be really helpfull for certain cases. >>>>> I have attached the log file and the patch file with this mail for >>>>> review. >>>> >>>> I'm not familiar with this script, but won't your change break >>>> compatibility >>>> with existing users of the script? Imagine that someone is using the >>>> script >>>> today with 'svnperms.py -s perf', but their configuration file also has a >>>> section called "[superfun]" (something that "perf" would match, albeit >>>> incompletely. Will the new script, invoked the old way, read the wrong >>>> configury? >>>> >>>> Perhaps you should tie this change of interpretation to a new command-line >>>> flag, perhaps a capitalized "s" (-S). >>>> >>> >> >> > -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
