rfc: remove "revision specs"

[Matthieu Moy]

Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> writes:

> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 09:34 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> I'd like revision identifiers to be regexp-matchable in bzr too,
>> although I'm not sure how it's possible to do it.
>> bzr:///home/foo/bar/,rev=1040  could be nice, but OTOH,
>> bzr://http://www.site.com/my/bzr/branch/,rev=1040  looks really ughly.
>
> Couple of syntax nits here:
> .../bar/,rev=1040 is different to .../bar,rev=1040 is.
> The former is a parameter to an empty path element, the latter is a
> parameter to the bar element. I'm suggesting we allow parameters to the
> element that is the root of the branch.
>
> bzr:///home/foo/bar <- if by that you mean a bzr branch on the local
> file system, the relevant url scheme is 'file:' ->

Yes, but then, the fact that you want to access it as a bzr branch
doesn't appear in the URL. If I write file:///home/foo/bar then I'm
thinking "the directory /home/foo/bar", and an automatic tool (my
mailer/a gnome terminal/...) that would hyperlink it would only be
able to open something like a file manager.

Another argument in favor of specific URL scheme for bzr is that if
one wants to write a tool able to access several archive formats, he
can't know how to access file:///path/to/archive (is it a git, bzr,
baz archive ?).

Have you ever dreamt of being able to do

convert-archive bzr+http://sourcecontrol.net/path/to/archive \
                git+sftp://my-git.host.com/my/git/archive

?

> One could defined bzr+file: if we want to be able to define it but I
> think that that isn't useful at this point.

I like this one, though I'm not familiar enough with std66 to tell
wether it's the right way to do.

> Does the simpler way I'm writing them influence this feeling ?

Using http:// or file:// does not answer my question. I like
bzr+...:// but I'm not sure it's the correct way to use std66.

-- 
Matthieu