Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com writes:
On 2012.7.24 9:53 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
No, now it's just canonicalizing as early as possible. Preferably within
the
object accessor rather than at the point of use. So in the code below,
$full_url is already
On 2012.7.25 12:14 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Nothing, because paths are not URI escaped. :)
You probably meant svn_uri_canonicalize(). And no, it does not double
escape,
so its safe to escape as early as possible.
Are you saying that the function assumes that a local pathname would
It's post OSCON so I can take another crack at this again.
I'm struggling with how best to present all this to you folks. There's
etiquette for how one presents a git pull request... but there's conflicting
etiquette about how one presents patches to a mailing list. I'm not sure
which bit of
Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com writes:
A big one is do not blast 10 emails to a mailing list but I gather that's ok
here if a submission needs 10 commits to be well expressed and its done via
git-send-email? And then if patch #3 needs revision I'm to do it in a rebase
and resend the
Hi,
Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm trying to bust it up into easier to digest pieces.
I have a crazy idea. You might not like it, but maybe it's worth giving
it a try.
[...]
The Git::SVN extraction is more complicated than the rest, so I'll probably do
that separately and bust it up into a
Hi again,
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 2012.7.24 3:02 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Could you send the first five patches that *are* supposed to have a
functional effect? I know that they will not apply cleanly to git-svn
from git master or on top of each other; that's fine with me. If
the
On 2012.7.24 2:51 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com writes:
A big one is do not blast 10 emails to a mailing list but I gather that's
ok
here if a submission needs 10 commits to be well expressed and its done via
git-send-email? And then if patch #3 needs
Michael G Schwern wrote:
While I use git heavily I'm not invested in working on it. I work on a lot of
projects. I'd like to be able to do the work, submit it, work through review,
and get out without joining another mailing list and studying their culture.
An alternative approach would be
Michael G Schwern wrote:
git log -p schwern/git-svn/extract-classes..schwern/git-svn/fix-canonical
That should give you the information you need...
I guess so. May we have your sign-off on these changes? (A simple
reply of yes is enough, no need to resend patches to do this.)
Here it is
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
git log -p schwern/git-svn/extract-classes..schwern/git-svn/fix-canonical
That should give you the information you need...
I guess so. May we have your sign-off on these changes? (A simple
reply of yes is enough, no
On 2012.7.24 4:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
git log -p schwern/git-svn/extract-classes..schwern/git-svn/fix-canonical
That should give you the information you need...
I guess so. May we have your sign-off on these changes? (A simple
reply of yes is enough, no need to resend patches to do
Michael G Schwern wrote:
No, now it's just canonicalizing as early as possible. Preferably within the
object accessor rather than at the point of use. So in the code below,
$full_url is already escaped/canonicalized.
Let's start with this.
Is svn_path_canonicalize() idempotent? What does
On 2012.7.24 9:53 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
No, now it's just canonicalizing as early as possible. Preferably within the
object accessor rather than at the point of use. So in the code below,
$full_url is already escaped/canonicalized.
Let's start with this.
13 matches
Mail list logo
