svn_load_dirs doesn't support filenames with @ in

[j***@beniston.com]

Hi,



It seems svn_load_dirs.pl doesn't support filenames with @ in. You get an
error such as:



'***@2x.png': a peg revision is not allowed here



This patch adds @ to the end of the filename, to make it work.



Cheers,

Jon



--- svn_load_dirs.pl.in.old.txt 2018-08-21 09:33:02.557893300 +0100

+++ svn_load_dirs.pl.in 2018-08-21 09:33:12.339005700 +0100

@@ -1203,6 +1203,12 @@ while (defined (my $load_dir = &get_next

print $handle $property_value;

close($handle);



+ # Check for filenames containing svn rev character @. If it

+ # contains one, add @ to end of filename

+ if (index($add_file, '@') != -1) {

+ $add_file = $add_file . '@';

+ }

+

read_from_process($svn,

'propset',

$property_name,

[Daniel Shahaf]

Thanks jon. Committed with tweaks in r1838539.

Post by j***@beniston.com
--- svn_load_dirs.pl.in.old.txt 2018-08-21 09:33:02.557893300 +0100
+++ svn_load_dirs.pl.in 2018-08-21 09:33:12.339005700 +0100
@@ -1203,6 +1203,12 @@ while (defined (my $load_dir = &get_next
print $handle $property_value;
close($handle);

Your MUA seems to have mangled the patch. The easiest way to avoid this
is to send patches as attachments named *.txt.

Cheers,

Daniel

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

Post by Daniel Shahaf
Thanks jon. Committed with tweaks in r1838539.

Post by j***@beniston.com
--- svn_load_dirs.pl.in.old.txt 2018-08-21 09:33:02.557893300 +0100
+++ svn_load_dirs.pl.in 2018-08-21 09:33:12.339005700 +0100
@@ -1203,6 +1203,12 @@ while (defined (my $load_dir = &get_next
print $handle $property_value;
close($handle);

Your MUA seems to have mangled the patch. The easiest way to avoid this
is to send patches as attachments named *.txt.
Cheers,
Daniel

Sending attachments for other people to open can get.... well, it can
get confusing, and it makes the patch tough for people to review
without downloading the patch. Is there any compelling reason not to
do *both*? And, since it's a patch file, not to send it as a
"filename.patch" attachment?

[Daniel Shahaf]

Post by Nico Kadel-Garcia

Post by Daniel Shahaf
Your MUA seems to have mangled the patch. The easiest way to avoid this
is to send patches as attachments named *.txt.

Sending attachments for other people to open can get.... well, it can
get confusing, and it makes the patch tough for people to review
without downloading the patch. Is there any compelling reason not to
do *both*? And, since it's a patch file, not to send it as a
"filename.patch" attachment?

The reason for advising .txt in preference to .patch is to ensure the
attachment's MIME type will be text/*, which in turn will make the
recipient's MUA show the attachment without the recipient having to take
a manual step.

[Ryan Schmidt]

Post by Daniel Shahaf
Thanks jon. Committed with tweaks in r1838539.

It seems something like this was suggested before:

https://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2010-09/0565.shtml

You directed the contributor to repost the patch to the -dev list, but I'm not sure if they ever did.

The patch they suggested contained a few additional changes; not sure if they're still relevant now.

[Daniel Shahaf]

Post by Ryan Schmidt

Post by Daniel Shahaf
Thanks jon. Committed with tweaks in r1838539.

https://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2010-09/0565.shtml
You directed the contributor to repost the patch to the -dev list, but
I'm not sure if they ever did.
The patch they suggested contained a few additional changes; not sure if
they're still relevant now.

Good memory :). On a skim, the first hunk might still be relevant.
I'll leave it to others to assess this further (Jon, you're welcome to
take this, if you wish).

Cheers,

Daniel