[RFC] Trying to get something better that revno:N:branch to deal with remote revs

[Matthieu Moy]

Jan Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz> writes:

> option.
>
> Pros:
>   - It's more like the RFC meant it to be used.
>   - It allows other future uses for ';' (though I can't really think of
>     any)
>   - It reduces ambiguity by matching on the whole ';rev='.

    - it makes it more explicit for user:

http://foo.com/bar;1 doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't know
the trick, while http://foo.com/bar;rev=1 is very clear.

> Cons:
>   - It's 4 more characters to type.

Is't kind of redundant for some revision specs.

http://foo.com/bar;rev=revid:xyzw
                   ^^^ ^^^

is not very elegant, although acceptable.

My (non-)conclusion: why not, but not sure it's really an improvement.

>> ',' but I use commas in my paths, and don't want to escape them to %2c
>> all the time. I don't use ';' because it is a shell metacharacter.
>
> An option would be to have the character configurable on client,
> defaulting to ';'.

-1 on this: it breaks scriptability.

-- 
Matthieu