subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "C. Michael Pilato" <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Enhancement to to read sections via regex
Date Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:01:35 GMT
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 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 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 ' -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).

C. Michael Pilato <>
CollabNet   <>   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

View raw message