Yes Mike... please disregard this patch for now because no point in development without any requirement.
Thanks & Regards Prabhu GS On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:01 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Are you saying, then, that you'd like us to disregard your patch for now? > > On 09/29/2010 08:50 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote: > > Mike, > > Sorry for the delayed response. > > Your point is very much a valid one, Mike. But since we used > > *re.match*, "perf" would not match "superfun". But your point really > > holds good when "super" would match "superfun" repo. Actually I was not > > aware of the -s option(thank you for that) while I coded this. I wanted > > the regex part only to match the like-repo names in the config. But now, > > this serves my purpose. I don't see any specific requirement from anyone > > for this regex part. I would like to do the further enhancements if it > > really is required... Thanks for the suggestions Mike :) > > > > > > Prabhu GS > > > > On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 11:23 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >> On 09/22/2010 09:07 AM, prabhugnanasundar wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The svnperms.py script reads the svnperms.conf file, which needs the > >>> section rules for all the repos uniquely. This was quite tough when we > >>> have n number if repos. I wished that svnperms.py reads regex matches > >>> and applies the configuration rules and came up with this patch. > >>> Mid-way of my coding work, I came to know that -s switch would let us > >>> specify the section name explicitly, but not the regex thing. > >>> I modified the code to search for a matching section via regex, which > >>> might be really helpfull for certain cases. > >>> I have attached the log file and the patch file with this mail for > >>> review. > >> > >> I'm not familiar with this script, but won't your change break > >> compatibility > >> with existing users of the script? Imagine that someone is using the > >> script > >> today with 'svnperms.py -s perf', but their configuration file also has a > >> section called "[superfun]" (something that "perf" would match, albeit > >> incompletely. Will the new script, invoked the old way, read the wrong > >> configury? > >> > >> Perhaps you should tie this change of interpretation to a new command-line > >> flag, perhaps a capitalized "s" (-S). > >> > > > >
