Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>> Perhaps. svn_repos__validate_prop is also used by
>> svn_repos_fs_change_txn_props, is it appropriate to validate mergeinfo
> Why not? No one should be setting svn:mergeinfo as a txnprop (or
> revprop). (and if they do, they shouldn't use the svn:* namespace)
>> We should probably split the validate function into two, one for node
>> props and one for revprops.
> Given that we don't have any SVN_PROP_* whose semantics differ when it's
> set as a revprop v. when it's set as a nodeprop, I'm not sure what this
> would gain; I'm ±0.
Huh? They differ totally. It makes no sense to check svn:mergeinfo
syntax valid set as a revprop, we should either allow all values or
> Unless, perhaps, you want to add verification that svn:mergeinfo isn't
> set as a revprop and svn:log isn't set as a nodeprop? Feel free to do
> so, but then I suggest you'll also teach svnsync et al to strip those
> (ill-set) properties to avoid breaking any repositories out there that
> do have svn:mergeinfo revprops and svn:log nodeprops.
Old repositories are already problem. The existing svn:mergeinfo
validation is going to prevent people dumping/loading repositories with
invalid svn:mergeinfo on nodes. We don't want to add to the problem by
adding syntax checking where we don't need it unless we *also* add the
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2011-07-08 21:04:30 CEST