[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Issue #2991 resolved, but questions remain.

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-11-06 19:58:23 CET

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007, David Glasser wrote:

> On 11/6/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
>
> > 3) RA-dependent inconsistency in capability reporting.
> >
> > This is a minor nit, sort of related to (2). Both ra_local and
> > ra_dav (neon and serf) pass the same set of capabilities to
> > 'start-commit', namely "log-revprops,depth,mergeinfo" (the order
> > might change, but the set is the same). However, ra_svn sends:
> >
> > "edit-pipeline,svndiff1,absent-entries,depth,mergeinfo,log-revprops"
> >
> > You can imagine why: it's largely an accident of implementation
> > and the fact that ra_svn was already transmitting capabilities
> > before the other RA layers got into the game.
>
> Well, sort of. It's also the fact that some of these (edit-pipeline
> especially, and svndiff1 to some degree) are really ra_svn-protocol
> specific. They aren't properties of the *Subversion* client or server
> (like the new caps are); they're properties of the *ra_svn protocol*
> client or server. I don't think that start-commit should see them any
> more than they should see User-Agent strings or whether mod_gzip was
> used or something.

I have the same opinion as Dave. Karl, can things be structured such
that the protocol-specific capabilities are sent only for the relevant
protocols, and the global Subversion-specific capabilities are always
sent?

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Nov 6 19:58:34 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.