Re: [PATCH] don't append 'opaquelocktoken:' in PUT and MOVE

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

Umm.  This "16" is a little bit too hardcoded for my liking.  I mean, it
is not even obvious from _this_ hunk why "16" should be correct.

Any solutions for this? Would a comment like "skip 'opaquelocktoken:'
prefix of length 16" be sufficient? Or maybe in the commit message?

I considered a set of strbuf functions, like for the remote object url
(get_remote_object_url and append_remote_object_url), but I thought it
was a little overkill, since this is one of the only instances that I
can think of where including 'opaquelocktoken:' is unwanted.

Besides, I have to wonder where request->lock->token is set, and if that
would not be the better place to fix the issue?

Are you suggesting perhaps that we revert commit 753bc91? Or perhaps
create another way to access lock tokens, say, get_lock_token(int
prepend_scheme)?

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan