gpg signed commits: new base naming convention

[Bernd Jendrissek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

I'm just reading the wiki article at
http://ximbiot.com/cvs/wiki/index.php?title=GPG-Signed_Commits
and I'm worried that the proposed naming convention allows for
ambiguity.

If it will be .#filename.revision, won't cvs get confused when $filename
ends in something that looks like a revision number?

Suppose I have two files in revision control, foo, and foo.1.2 (silly
and contrived, but possible, and somehow windows users have a knack for
wanting these weird things).  Let's also say I want to check out "foo"
on a branch, 1.2.1, so the base file would be .#foo.1.2.1.1, and I want
some random revision of foo.1.2 on HEAD, and it happens to be 1.1 that I
want, so its base file will be .#foo.1.2.1.1.  See the problem?

Thumbsuck solution: .#filename#.revision; since $revision may never
contain '#', this disambiguates the encoding.  The example above would
then have base files .#foo.1.2#.1.1 and .#foo#.1.2.1.1.

- -- 
I have neither the need, the time, or the inclination to put words into your
mouth. You are perfectly capable of damaging your reputation without any help
from me.                   --Richard Heathfield roasts a troll in comp.lang.c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/

iD8DBQFEYJiOwyMv24BBd/gRAqKCAKCPEnNAmMW5myfb+USDfCzm0+EEqwCgjUJR
fwY12NCYvnS8LLz32fU5eLw=
=B9Gf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----