Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
Am 10.06.2010 13:52, schrieb Stephen Leake:
Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
Am 10.06.2010 09:49, schrieb Stephen Leake:
This is a reasonable approach, but personally I would prefer an error (I
always prefer errors over warnings; it's
Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net writes:
Hrm - should we really disallow them by default? Another option could be
to just issue a warning and let the user go ahead. Wireing in the code
which errors out in an invalid case and correctly rolling back might be
cumbersome, given the fact that
Am 10.06.2010 09:49, schrieb Stephen Leake:
Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net writes:
Hrm - should we really disallow them by default? Another option could be
to just issue a warning and let the user go ahead. Wireing in the code
which errors out in an invalid case and correctly rolling
Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
Am 10.06.2010 09:49, schrieb Stephen Leake:
Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net writes:
Hrm - should we really disallow them by default? Another option could be
to just issue a warning and let the user go ahead. Wireing in the code
which errors
On 06/10/2010 04:45 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 10.06.2010 05:02, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
What sort of other things, more user-visible changes or internal code
hygiene?
Both, actually:
* cleanup the connection info handling mess
* remove the code for the other include / exclude
Am 10.06.10 18:48, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
On 06/10/2010 04:45 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 10.06.2010 05:02, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
What sort of other things, more user-visible changes or internal code
hygiene?
Both, actually:
* cleanup the connection info handling mess
*
On 06/10/2010 02:36 PM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 10.06.10 18:48, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
On 06/10/2010 04:45 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 10.06.2010 05:02, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
What sort of other things, more user-visible changes or internal code
hygiene?
Both, actually:
*
On 04/28/2010 06:06 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 28.04.2010 12:36, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Kellerm...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not match
the following regular expression, i.e. by throwing a
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 12:01:10PM -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
I think we also don't like '+' and '%' due to urlencoding. Any
objections to requiring an --allow-discouraged-branch-names option to
create branch certs that don't match /^[^-,*+%][^,*+%]*$/?
I guess this would have to
On 06/09/2010 12:13 PM, hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 12:01:10PM -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
I think we also don't like '+' and '%' due to urlencoding. Any
objections to requiring an --allow-discouraged-branch-names option to
create branch certs that don't match
Am 09.06.10 19:01, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
On 04/28/2010 06:06 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 28.04.2010 12:36, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Kellerm...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not match
the
On 06/09/2010 06:34 PM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 09.06.10 19:01, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
On 04/28/2010 06:06 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 28.04.2010 12:36, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Kellerm...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively
On 06/09/2010 10:02 PM, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
On 06/09/2010 06:34 PM, Thomas Keller wrote:
We could still disallow '+' if we'd want to make inclusion also
explicit, but some people disagreed on this. Personally I won't mind.
Well, the reason for '+' is more that a '+' in a url translates
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 09:41:08AM -0600, Derek Scherger wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz wrote:
+1/2 - this is similar to my last proposal (with : as separators, but
I'd accept , as well) - but the mandatory ? still strikes me. Do you
see any
Am 28.04.2010 01:42, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
So how should we continue? I think we should pick _one_ syntax and stick
to that, and I'd vote for the simple one
mtn://monotone.ca?foo.bar*/-foo.bar.baz
Seems reasonable.
but with a few modifications so it would look like this:
Am 28.04.2010 02:00, schrieb Timothy Brownawell:
On 04/27/2010 06:54 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy
Brownawelltbrow...@prjek.net wrote:
Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with
urlencoding
(and '*' would only actually glob things if
Am 28.04.2010 07:25, schrieb Derek Scherger:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net
wrote:
Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with
urlencoding
(and '*' would only
Am Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:40:23 +0200
schrieb Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz:
I think I have to find another shell...
$ echo mtn://foo.com#foo
zsh: no matches found: mtn://foo.com#foo
So if its only zsh and whatever I try here needs escaping anyways, we
can simply stick to the more
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not match
the following regular expression, i.e. by throwing a warning when a
branch cert which a different value is created:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:54:01PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net
wrote:
Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with urlencoding
(and '*' would only actually glob things if you have some really weirdly
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:36:59PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not match
the following regular expression, i.e. by throwing a warning when a
branch
Am 28.04.2010 08:42, schrieb hend...@topoi.pooq.com:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:54:01PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
So, how about this?
protocol://u...@server.host.name/path/to/database?include,include,-exclude,-exclude
should work equally well for mtn (with usher), ssh, and file.
Am 28.04.2010 12:36, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not match
the following regular expression, i.e. by throwing a warning when a
branch cert which a
Am 28.04.2010 08:50, schrieb hend...@topoi.pooq.com:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:36:59PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not match
the following regular
Am Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:50:09 -0400
schrieb hend...@topoi.pooq.com:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:36:59PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:49:37 +0200
schrieb Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz:
Secondly, I'd actively deprecate any branch name which does not
match
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.dewrote:
mtn ls branches | grep -v -E '^(\w+(-\w+)*)(\.\w+(-\w+)*)*$'
shows only one branch that doesn't match in my local copy of the
monotone db (prjek.net:tester).
And what would you do with that branch if this
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz wrote:
+1/2 - this is similar to my last proposal (with : as separators, but
I'd accept , as well) - but the mandatory ? still strikes me. Do you
see any way to avoid ? for the 90% use case (sync a single branch
without
On 04/18/2010 01:49 PM, Thomas Keller wrote:
The following URIs are currently supported:
mtn://monotone.ca
mtn://monotone.ca/monotone
mtn://monotone.ca?foo.bar
mtn://monotone.ca?foo.bar*/-foo.bar.baz
mtn://monotone.ca/monotone?foo.bar
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net wrote:
Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with urlencoding
(and '*' would only actually glob things if you have some really weirdly
named files), and '?' is probably necessary for file/ssh sync.
I
On 04/27/2010 06:54 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy Brownawelltbrow...@prjek.net wrote:
Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with urlencoding
(and '*' would only actually glob things if you have some really weirdly
named files), and '?'
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Timothy Brownawell tbrow...@prjek.net
wrote:
Is the occasional backslash really that bad? '%' conflicts with
urlencoding
(and '*' would only actually glob things if you have some really
I don't have any feedback on this stuff myself, but I want to mention
that over a year ago, Roland McGrath posted some complaints about the
mtn:// URI schema being either broken or not useful as designed -- it
was never clear to me which, because I don't know how it's supposed to
work. You might
32 matches
Mail list logo
