branch: sftp fixes

[Robey Pointer]

On 21 Nov 2005, at 18:44, John A Meinel wrote:

> Robey Pointer wrote:
>>
>> The reason I'm starting to get impatient is because the url format
>> change will mean changing any existing push/pull sftp url, and the
>> longer we wait, the more such urls there will be.  (Plus having this
>> pile of unintegrated patches just gives me more merge worries for my
>> other changes.) ;)
>
> Is there a way to do it, such that it won't break existing urls? I
> realize some people really want paths to be relative to their home
> directory, but I personally don't. Most of the time that I'm  
> accessing a
> remote sftp branch is because it is a shared branch (possibly just
> because it is published). And since you shouldn't have to type the  
> path
> very often (since we have a sane default for most merge/push/pull/ 
> etc),
> I would rather stick with absolute urls.
>
> And I really think sftp://host/%2dstuff is ugly.

I agree.  Luckily, as Jan pointed out, there is nothing ambiguous  
about accepting "/" there too, so you can use <sftp://host//stuff>  
instead.

There's no way to avoid breaking existing urls, because the urls I  
interpreted as "absolute" in the first version of my patch are the  
same format as those the url draft specifies are "relative".  (In my  
defense, I was just copying the url format used by tla.)

I think we should support both relative and absolute urls, and I  
think we should do it in some standard (or draft standard) way.   
That's why I changed it to follow the draft.

robey

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051121/6e652e4f/attachment.pgp