On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Lieven Govaerts <lgo_at_mobsol.be> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 2012, at 3:11 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05.11.2012 00:21, Thomas Åkesson wrote:
>>>> I did some tests with curl --head just as a sanity check. It seems to be a good choice for access control. I primarily wanted to see that HEAD requests were not allowed in situations where GET is not (e.g. when user has access in directories below).
>>>>
>>>> The HEAD requests I performed (minimal curl command) did not cause the server to provide Content-Length when returning "200 OK".
>>>
>>> Which is precisely what I was talking about in my other post. Such HEAD
>>> responses are invalid. If we implement HEAD, we have to do it correctly.
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>
>> I thought that Serf already issues HEAD requests? Not sure about Neon.
>>
> No it doesn't, serf only sends the requests provided by svn. (except
> when setting up an ssl tunnel, but that's not relevant here).
Are you talking about trunk specifically? When 1.7 was released, a
checkout/update done with a Serf client would issue a series of HEAD
and PROPFIND requests to the server. I think the changes that
cmpilato made to include the properties in the REPORT response removed
this on trunk, but I thought it was still true with 1.7.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2012-11-05 14:08:23 CET