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

Re: request to clarify and improve Subversion property name specification

From: Garret Wilson <garret_at_globalmentor.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:03:30 -0800

On 1/23/2012 8:52 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> In the past, people passed svn:log properties with embedded CRLFs into
> that API --- which has been forbidden by some API doc or another since
> 1.0.0, and is today caught and forbidden by svn_repos__validate_prop().

Huh! Yeah, actually a long time ago I remember complaining that had had
used CRLFs and suddenly they weren't showing up in Subclipse, or
something---my memory is hazy. But you know, coincidentally, just two
days ago I thought of this when I entered a multi-line log entry in
Subclipse---and it worked just fine! So I don't know where it is
"forbidden". You can view the log history of
to see what I'm talking about---it's public.

But if you look into that, please let's start a new thread. I don't want
my precious property name issue to get off track. :)

> Is this materially different from the issue you are seeing --- where
> as a consumer of the svn_ra_* API you used propnames that you wouldn't
> have been able to set through the svn_client_* API?

That sound analogous, yes.


P.S. My longer, overly verbose answer: Since I don't know the source
code I can't say 100% if that's what I'm talking about, but yeah, it
sounds analogous---I was allowed to do something over SVN+DAV that the
clients don't allow me to do---and it wasn't because I was trying to
break the rules, it was because I never knew I was breaking the rules
and that my code wouldn't work across implementations. And then when I
try to find out exactly what the rules are, it turns out there isn't
even a specification and the "rules" are "go look and see what the code
does..." etc.
Received on 2012-01-24 06:04:28 CET

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