You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Gavin Baumanis <ga...@thespidernet.com> on 2009/04/01 09:13:59 UTC
Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden
Hi Jelmer,
Can I please bother you for an update?
Have you recreated your patch with the requested change?
And just as ongoing reminder (for everyone - not specifically
addressing it to you or "this" patch),
Please follow;
http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#patches
http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#log-messages
Beau.
On 14/03/2009, at 1:04 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 06:19:09PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:15:21PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Jelmer Vernooij
>>>> <je...@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> So the question becomes, do we want to leak this distinction
>>>>>>>> from RFC
>>>>>>>> 2616 into SVN_ERR_RA's or SVN_ERR_RA_DAV's error codes? The
>>>>>>>> latter
>>>>>>>> seems reasonable, but if we're going to put it there, perhaps
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> should be in the top-level.
>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by top-level here exactly?
>
>>>>>> SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN
>
>>>>>>> Putting it in SVN_ERR_RA or SVN_ERR_RA_DAV both seems
>>>>>>> reasonable to me.
>>>>>>> I would think it's not very likely that svn_ra_file or
>>>>>>> svn_ra_svn would
>>>>>>> return this error, so perhaps that is a good reason to put it in
>>>>>>> SVN_ERR_RA_DAV.
>
>>>>>> Why would mod_dav_svn return this error, but svn or svnserve
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> not? Just for spec conformance? Just playing devil's advocate
>>>>>> here.
>>>>> svn_ra_svn and svn_ra_file both have more specific error codes
>>>>> they
>>>>> can return. svn_ra_file can for example just return "Permission
>>>>> denied" with
>>>>> the matching errno if it doesn't have the right permissions.
>>>>> svn_ra_svn only refuses because of authorization afaik, it never
>>>>> gives
>>>>> any "blanket" forbidden errors.
>
>>>> Alright, let's go with SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN.
>>> My argument was for SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN, are you sure you mean
>>> SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN? I'm fine with either.
>> I meant SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN, just neglected to edit after cut-
>> and-paste.
> Ah, thanks. Just to be sure: are you happy to approve this patch
> with SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>
> --
> Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org> - http://jelmer.vernstok.nl/
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1505059
Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden
Posted by Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org>.
Hi Gavin,
Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote:>
> Can I please bother you for an update?
> Have you recreated your patch with the requested change?
>
> And just as ongoing reminder (for everyone - not specifically addressing
> it to you or "this" patch),
>
> Please follow;
> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#patches
> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#log-messages
Thanks for following up. I committed this patch on March 14th, after
review by rhuijben and dlr.
Cheers,
Jelmer
> On 14/03/2009, at 1:04 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 06:19:09PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:15:21PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Daniel Rall wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jelmer Vernooij
>>>>>>> <je...@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> So the question becomes, do we want to leak this distinction
>>>>>>>>> from RFC
>>>>>>>>> 2616 into SVN_ERR_RA's or SVN_ERR_RA_DAV's error codes? The latter
>>>>>>>>> seems reasonable, but if we're going to put it there, perhaps it
>>>>>>>>> should be in the top-level.
>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by top-level here exactly?
>>
>>>>>>> SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN
>>
>>>>>>>> Putting it in SVN_ERR_RA or SVN_ERR_RA_DAV both seems reasonable
>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>> I would think it's not very likely that svn_ra_file or
>>>>>>>> svn_ra_svn would
>>>>>>>> return this error, so perhaps that is a good reason to put it in
>>>>>>>> SVN_ERR_RA_DAV.
>>
>>>>>>> Why would mod_dav_svn return this error, but svn or svnserve would
>>>>>>> not? Just for spec conformance? Just playing devil's advocate here.
>>>>>> svn_ra_svn and svn_ra_file both have more specific error codes they
>>>>>> can return. svn_ra_file can for example just return "Permission
>>>>>> denied" with
>>>>>> the matching errno if it doesn't have the right permissions.
>>>>>> svn_ra_svn only refuses because of authorization afaik, it never
>>>>>> gives
>>>>>> any "blanket" forbidden errors.
>>
>>>>> Alright, let's go with SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN.
>>>> My argument was for SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN, are you sure you mean
>>>> SVN_ERR_RA_FORBIDDEN? I'm fine with either.
>>> I meant SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN, just neglected to edit after
>>> cut-and-paste.
>> Ah, thanks. Just to be sure: are you happy to approve this patch
>> with SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_FORBIDDEN?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jelmer
>>
>> --
>> Jelmer Vernooij <je...@samba.org> - http://jelmer.vernstok.nl/
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1505884
Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden
Posted by Gavin Baumanis <ga...@thespidernet.com>.
Hi Bert,
And thanks.
I have obviously missed it!
The last email I have in this thread was the one I replied to.
And here I was thinking that I had managed to keep abreast of the
whole list - just in case something slipped through without the
[PATCH] identifier.
Anyhoo, Thanks again - I'll remove it from my list.
Beau.
On 01/04/2009, at 8:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gavin Baumanis [mailto:gavinb@thespidernet.com]
>> Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 11:14
>> To: Jelmer Vernooij
>> Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden
>>
>> Hi Jelmer,
>>
>> Can I please bother you for an update?
>> Have you recreated your patch with the requested change?
>>
>> And just as ongoing reminder (for everyone - not specifically
>> addressing it to you or "this" patch),
>>
>> Please follow;
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#patches
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#log-messages
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch was already committed after minor updates from Jelmer.
> (And was
> partially backported and released in 1.6.0).
>
> Bert
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1505173
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1505429
RE: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden
Posted by Bert Huijben <rh...@sharpsvn.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Baumanis [mailto:gavinb@thespidernet.com]
> Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 11:14
> To: Jelmer Vernooij
> Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add separate error code for RA Forbidden
>
> Hi Jelmer,
>
> Can I please bother you for an update?
> Have you recreated your patch with the requested change?
>
> And just as ongoing reminder (for everyone - not specifically
> addressing it to you or "this" patch),
>
> Please follow;
> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#patches
> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#log-messages
Hi,
This patch was already committed after minor updates from Jelmer. (And was
partially backported and released in 1.6.0).
Bert
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1505173