On 23.11.2012 17:17, Mark Phippard wrote: > Personally, I think checking for mis-spellings in "svn:" goes too far. > For example, do these checks interfere with setting any of the tsvn: > properties?
No. The check specifically looks for a three-letter prefix ending in a colon, and allows only one wrong character or transposition. It will flag svm: but not tsvn:. > I would be very much against that as they are widely > used. Your example shows blocking gvn:ignore. AFAIK, the gvn project > is not being used since Google decided not to use SVN, but what if > they had? Would we really want to require --force for properties > named gvn:*? Yes. > http://code.google.com/p/gvn/ > > It is difficult to say because I can see the value in what you are > doing here. It just seems like it is walking us down a path that we > typically try to stay away from. The intent of the proposed change is to warn people about misspelling svn: properties. Surely the prefix can be misspelt as well? Why should svm:needs-lock be silently accepted, but not svn:global-ignore? I agree that looking at the prefix is dicey, which is why I defined the constraints as explained above. I'm also looking at options for not flagging non-svn: properties that are different enough from the known ones; for example, these would be flagged: svm:needs-lock svn:global-ignore gvn:ignore but not gvn:defrobify gvn:local-ignores I know how to do this, but I'm not clear yet about how or where to draw the line. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
