On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 21:15:24 +0100:
>> 2) Am I the only one who wants to protect his repository against this
>> corruption? Judging from , I don't think so. It doesn't make sense
>> that everyone starts writing this pre-commit hook, for something that
>> IMHO is an obvious anti-corruption protection. I think every
>> repository out there deserves to be protected against this.
> FWIW, I suggested a hook because you could implement that in about
> 5 minutes, whereas doing a C code change would take at least 10 times
> that (and several weeks if you have to wait for it to appear in a 1.7.x
> release that you can install at $WORK). I won't object to C code
> verifying the svn:eol-style invariant.
Thanks. And your pre-commit hook example is much appreciated.
For the moment I get the impression that it's not really doable /
desirable to implement this in the repository. At least until now
no-one has suggested how it could be done, and I don't know enough
myself about the server-side / back-end to figure it out :-).
(side-note: I don't want to rush anything and get it backported to a
1.7.x release. For the moment I can manage (I watch the problem from
an asynchronous post-commit hook, and fix it as soon as it happens,
which is only a couple of times a year in our repos). But I'm
interested in a long-term solution to this, so this wart can be
As for my 1st concern, about the slowness of the pre-commit hook
validation, it might be possible to make it faster if both 'svnlook
pg' and 'svnlook cat' would support multiple targets.
Received on 2012-12-10 00:09:20 CET