> From: 'Daniel Shahaf' [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:53 PM > > I am sure similar points were made on dev@ when the 'svn add > foo@' problem was discussed there last year (that's part of the reason I > asked you to search for already-filed issues before filing an issue about add: > it's possible we decided to followthe semantics you describe, so even 'svn > add' targets require peg escaping for consistency).
I think I've just found the discussion you're talking about: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel/129600 Indeed, two similar issues are mentioned there: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3416 http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3651 but they are both marked as "RESOLVED"... Issue #3651 looks very similar... Thanks for the hint! I've also just added an according notice to Issue #4392 ( http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4392 ) As for test script - I think it might be quite similar to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/copy_tests.py?annotate=952992&pathrev=952992 test, designed for issue #3651 (it's referenced in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel/129600 ). > Would you be interested in writing patches and/or regression tests for these > issues? I'd love to, but I've got a couple of deadlines ahead in a couple of weeks... Maybe... If no one else would fix this before...
