Hi Jelmer,
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
Beau.
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=1505059
Received on 2009-04-01 11:14:37 CEST