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/
Received on 2009-03-14 03:05:11 CET