Johan, et. al.:
Solid discussion - thank you. As I said, I'll keep a watch as things
progress...
Cheers.
Doug
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Doug Robinson
> wrote:
> >
> > Johan:
> >
> > Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit h
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Doug Robinson
> wrote:
>>
>> Johan:
>>
>> Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit hectic here.
>>
>> Reply buried deep below.
>>
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Doug Robinson
wrote:
>
> Johan:
>
> Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit hectic here.
>
> Reply buried deep below.
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Johan:
>>
Brane:
Right! And this is likely why the AuthZ implementation today for
"/**" governs both the "file" and "directory" since it can't know.
Given this, I'd like to keep the current behavior (that's in the branch
for 1.8 and 1.9) as it "works".
Thank you.
Doug
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Br
Johan:
Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit hectic here.
Reply buried deep below.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson
> wrote:
> >
> > Johan:
> >
> > (sorry for the empty message - dwim failed)
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 20
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:09:33 +0200:
> Come to think of it: if reserving a namespace for future use, and
> "/iota" doesn't exist yet, can't you just block the name "/iota"
> without glob pattern? It doesn't exist anyway, so if you'd like to
> create some subtree under it, y
On 05.05.2017 11:09, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson
> wrote:
>> Johan:
>>
>> (sorry for the empty message - dwim failed)
>>
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>>> wrote:
Doug
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson
wrote:
>
> Johan:
>
> (sorry for the empty message - dwim failed)
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0
Johan:
(sorry for the empty message - dwim failed)
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400:
> ...
> >> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE neede
Johan:
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400:
> ...
> >> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE needed to handle
> >> this would be one of the dua
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, May 04, 2017 at 13:26:30 +0200:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400:
> ...
> >> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE needed to handle
> >> this would be one of the duals
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400:
...
>> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE needed to handle
>> this would be one of the duals, e.g. "/trunk/iota(|/.*)" - the
>> either/or with nothing on the left and
Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400:
> Daniel:
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>
> > Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, May 01, 2017 at 14:20:16 +:
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf
> > wrote:
> > > > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, A
Daniel:
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf
wrote:
> Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, May 01, 2017 at 14:20:16 +:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200:
> > > > On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrot
Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, May 01, 2017 at 14:20:16 +:
> Daniel:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200:
> > > On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > >>From the 1.10 draft release notes:
> > > >
> >
Daniel:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200:
> > On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > >>From the 1.10 draft release notes:
> > >
> > >>All wildcards apply to full path segments only, i.e. * never matches
> > >
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200:
> On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>From the 1.10 draft release notes:
> >
> >>All wildcards apply to full path segments only, i.e. * never matches
> >>/, except for the case where /**/ matches zero or more path segments.
> >
On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>From the 1.10 draft release notes:
All wildcards apply to full path segments only, i.e. * never matches
/, except for the case where /**/ matches zero or more path segments.
For example, /*/**/* will match any path which contains at least
2 segments an
Daniel:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Daniel Shahaf
wrote:
> Doug Robinson wrote on Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:05:53 -0400:
> > That said, in discussions I've had I think about the SVN regex "**"
> > differently than the zsh construct. The way that I interpret "/**" is
> > "everything below and
Doug Robinson wrote on Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:05:53 -0400:
> Daniel:
>
> Sorry for the delay - I missed the post.
No worries.
> That said, in discussions I've had I think about the SVN regex "**"
> differently than the zsh construct. The way that I interpret "/**" is
> "everything below and in
Daniel:
Sorry for the delay - I missed the post.
And, I'm going to recant my original conclusion - my apologies for not
treating this with sufficient vigor the 1st time around.
Wow - it's been a long time since I played with zsh. Yep, I see the
reference to "‘***/*’ is equivalent to ‘*(*/)#*’".
Doug Robinson wrote on Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:40:50 -0400:
> Daniel:
>
> The shell's all treat ** as * and require that it match something. So
> "mkdir -p foo/bar/baz" would match.
>
> No command shell that I know of (sh,bash,zsh,tcsh,csh,ksh) has a
> moral equivalent to "zero or more path comp
Daniel:
The shell's all treat ** as * and require that it match something. So
"mkdir -p foo/bar/baz" would match.
I would expect "/*/**/*", "/**/*/*" and "/*/*/**" to all match exactly the
same sets of components.
No command shell that I know of (sh,bash,zsh,tcsh,csh,ksh) has a
moral equivalent
23 matches
Mail list logo
