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

Re: Callbacks, prompts, etc. for issue 2779

From: Mike Dixon <michael.dixon_at_denovosoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:54:56 -0700

On 7/29/2010 9:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 07/29/2010 12:28 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> If we just do the redirects, might a user just not perceive SVN as being slow?
>
> Well, the redirect should be a one-time event. The working copy is updated
> (using svn_client_relocate()) to point to the new, successfully contacted
> URL. From then on, it's business as usually for the working copy. It's not
> like we're constantly following redirects because the working copy has never
> been relocated or anything.
>

My apologies for jumping in here if I'm misunderstanding the issue, but
the combination of "HTTP", "redirect" and "one-time event" pushed me out
of passive list-reading mode.

For a 301 redirect, sure, a relocate is appropriate. For other 3xx
redirects, it may not be. I'm sure you've seen it, but:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3

In particular, 302 and 307 are strictly temporary. There's also a note
in 307 that redirection isn't allowed for anything other than GET or
HEAD without prompting the user.

It's up to you whether you think it's worth the effort or not, though. I
mean, there's a lot of code out there that doesn't follow protocol
exactly, and it sounds like always doing a relocate would at least be
better than the current situation. I just wanted to make sure you didn't
get to the end of your branch and go "oh hey, that's right, there are
those other redirect codes...".

-Mike
Received on 2010-07-30 02:55:44 CEST

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