"Using Saved Location: foo"

[John Arbash Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> But for local file URLs, it seems like it would be nicer to display the
>> actual Unicode path.
> 
> Makes sense to me.

So should this just be a check which says "if
url.startswith('file:///'):" or should we be trying to do it for any URL.

For example is it better to see:

using saved location: http://host/path/日本人
or:
using saved location http://host/path/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E4%BA%BA

The latter is something you can cut and paste into your browser. Though
I did a little bit of testing, and at least Firefox will translate the
former into the latter.

I would probably say that if someone used a unicode name, they want to
see it as much as possible, because it will mean something to them,
rather than just a bunch of gobbledygook.

So I think we should display unescaped "urls" as much as possible. (Yes
they are not real urls, but they are close).

Now, doing so violates the "support urls that aren't unicode" principle
that we have been talking about. But I think the violation is worth it
for the user.

I know that in English, I like to see that the parent is "bzr.dev" and
not "jam-integration". Which would be hard to tell from:

'%6A%61%6D%2D%69%6E%74%65%67%72%61%74%69%6F%6E'
versus
'%62%7A%72%2E%64%65%76'

I'm starting to think that the utility of real unicode paths outweighs
the benefits of supporting non-unicode paths.

I realize that we have issues with http://, because it may be a valid
unicode path, just encoded in a locale specific encoding, and as far as
I know the http spec doesn't give any information about how to inform
users of the path encoding. (Like it does the content encoding).

> 
>> It would save "../otherr" as the parent, even though the pull would fail.
>> I changed the code to wait until the other branch has been connected,
>> and then use "branch.base". Which returns the absolute path.
>>
>> Is it better to have ".bzr/branch/parent" be exactly what the user typed
>> (a relative path, etc). And is it better to do it right away rather than
>> after we have successfully contacted the other branch?
> 
> I think absolute paths will be correct more often, but there may be
> times when relative paths make sense, e.g. branches provided over
> network filesystems.
> 
> Aaron
> 

Well, for everything except local we require absolute URLs. But I can
see your point that I might have an NFS mount, and on different machines
the absolute path would be different.

But then again, is that likely to be a situation where one would be the
parent, and one would be the child?

I would be okay with it but I would like to see a consensus.

So lets see where this thread leads as it gets discussed.

What is your opinion about whether we should set parent even if we are
unable to connect to the branch?

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060427/255a3259/attachment.pgp