Ben Reser wrote on Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 15:22:44 -0800: > On 11/22/13 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > How about "dav_svn:/" then? That's consistent with mod_proxy's > > precedent you cite and not similarly-confusing to the "svn://" URL > > scheme. > > Yeah I probably should have used that but it's a little late for that since > the > release is already rolled and approved. I suppose we could change it again > but > unless there's people being confused by this I don't see the point of the > churn. It's bad enough we had to change it from being NULL.
Done in r1544711 after IRC discussion.
