Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> Sorry, I don't approve of this patch, I think it's misleading.
>>
>> The only thing it's doing is noticing when a GET request comes in that
>> has no X-SVN-Base: header. That could be any number of things. It
>> could be someone running 'svn cat'. It could be an ordinary web
>> browser surfing the repository.. It could be someone running 'curl'.
>> It could even be libsvn_ra_serf doing a checkout!
>>
>> I do not think all four of those scenarios should be listed as "svn
>> cat" in a high-level log. Furthermore, I don't think a lone GET
>> request is "high level" in the first place. It's low-level, and thus
>> the apache access.log is already logging it.
>>
>
> The idea behind this patch is to log all svn operations to one file, so
> that one can analyse single file for svn usage analysis, rather than
> analysing both access.log and svbversion.log.
The idea of the operation logging feature was simply to add clarity
where it was sorely lacking in the existing apache logs. You can't look
at a REPORT request against the default VCC URL and know if it is for
checkout, log, get-dated-revisions, etc. We needed a way to
disambiguate one Subversion operation from another. It was never, and
still is not, a goal to log all Subversion interactions in
human-language style and to a single file.
This patch does nothing to further the goal. It doesn't add much
clarity (it's pretty obvious what a GET is, and they operate on
path-revealing URLs unlike our REPORTs), merely redundancy.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Dec 21 16:00:15 2006