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

Re: svn commit: r38567 - in branches/1.6.x: . subversion/mod_dav_svn

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:12:39 -0400

Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 19:21, Stefan Sperling<stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 01:12:59PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>> Now, some perspective. Is this the most critical codepath in the system?
>>> Does it merit scrutiny of this degree? Perhaps not. It's just that my
>>> "change-without-good-reason" alarm went off, and I wanted to get to the
>>> bottom of that.
>> The bottom of that is Greg's brain.
>> We'll have to get hold of it and ask it what it was thinking...
> In repos.c, line 3011 (right after that code), there is the following comment:
> /* Probably serr->apr == SVN_ERR_BAD_MIME_TYPE, but
> there's no point even checking. No matter what the
> error is, we can't derive the mime type from the
> svn:mime-type property. So we resort to the infamous
> "mime type of last resort." */
> And it proceeds to set "application/octet-stream".

That's good context not visible in the diff. Thanks for noting it.

> Since we don't know whether the content is text or not, then assuming
> it is and setting "text/$anything" would be a mistake. The
> "application/octet-stream" is the most proper degenerate type.
> Was this a change in behavior? Sounds like it did. That certainly
> wasn't my intent.
> Should it be put back to text/plain? I'd say "no", but that's what
> discussion on the list is for :-)

No, I agree with you. And that's why I wasn't going to push the matter
beyond just noting to the list that I saw what looked like a behavior change
whose justification wasn't based on the behavior needing a change, but
simply due to the underlying API disappearing (which forced us to do
*something* there).

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that you-Greg-Stein-you were flipping
coins and coding to the results when I said "we" did something
"semi-random". I am 100% confident that you were just unaware of the
history of that code and did what seemed right to you at the time.
Certainly the reasoning of "when in doubt, call it a bucket o' bytes" makes
sense when viewed in a vacuum. But two other folks apparently approved the
change for backport, so it was "we" (as a community) that was making this
change, and "we" that seemed (from the evidence available) to be doing it
without awareness of the behavioral change. I still love you, man.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2009-08-07 19:13:21 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.