rfc: remove "revision specs"
bulb at ucw.cz
Wed Aug 31 13:41:41 BST 2005
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 09:59:30 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> writes:
> > 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.
IIRC it is correct and each of bzr+file, bzr+http, ... is considered
a separate scheme. If we don't want that, it would have to be bzr:file:/,
bzr:http://, but they would be considered opaque schemes.
> > 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.
It seems to be correct.
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050831/a0f7ce94/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar