On 11/22/13 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > How about "dav_svn:/" then? That's consistent with mod_proxy's > precedent you cite and not similarly-confusing to the "svn://" URL > scheme.
Yeah I probably should have used that but it's a little late for that since the release is already rolled and approved. I suppose we could change it again but unless there's people being confused by this I don't see the point of the churn. It's bad enough we had to change it from being NULL.
