Matthew DeVore <matv...@comcast.net> writes: > My justification for the URL-encoding scheme is: > ... > 3. Continuing to use a single filter line seemed the least > disruptive considering both this codebase and Git clones like > JGit. Other clones will likely fail saying "unknown filter > combine:" or something like that until it gets implemented. A > paranoid consideration is that clones and proprietary server > implementations may currently allow the "filter" line to be > silently overridden if it is repeated. > > 4. Assuming we *do* use a single filter line over the wire, it > makes sense to allow the user to specify the raw filter line as > well as have the more friendly UI of repeating --filter flags. > > 5. If we use repeated "filter" lines over the wire, and later > start implementing a more complete DSL for specifying filters (see > Mercurial's "revsets") the repeated-filter-line feature in the > protocol may end up becoming deprecated and we will end up > back-pedaling to allow integration of the "&" operator with > whatever new operators we need.
OK, that's fair. > 1. Allow anything to be encoded. I chose this because it's how I > usually think of URL encoding working. For instance, if I go to > https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=cod%65+coverage in Chrome, the > browser automatically decodes the %65 to an e in the address > bar. Safari does not automatically decode, but the server > apparently interprets the %65 as an e. I am not really attached to > this choice. OK, so the rule is "when you see 'combine:' (this part is never encoded), take the rest as a single string, separate it at '+' (these pluses are never encoded), and URLdecode each part---each of these parts is a filter", which totally makes sense. I somehow didn't see that clearly written in your description.
