On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, I do not see this with current 1.7 client so maybe that was all
changed before we released 1.7. I do see some mailing list threads
that referenced it but maybe we were able to remove all those requests
from the code.
I recall this came up when I was raising the issue about the number of
requests that Serf makes to the server so it is possible someone
removed them.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2012-11-05 14:12:42 CET