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 <jelmer_at_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 <jelmer_at_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_at_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 <jelmer@samba.org> - http://jelmer.vernstok.nl/
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1505884
Received on 2009-04-01 13:03:15 CEST