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

Re: enforcing LF-normalization for svn:eol-style=native files (issue #4065)

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:53:21 +0100

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Branko ─îibej wrote on Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:51:08 +0100:
>> On 10.12.2012 11:31, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Branko ─îibej wrote on Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 00:26:20 +0100:
>> >> On 10.12.2012 00:08, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> >>> 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 [1], 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 :-).
>> >> The first obstacle is that the server does not interpret properties.[1]
>> >> Therefore, you'd have to implement this check at transaction-commit
>> >> time, because there's no earlier point where you're guaranteed to have
>> >> all node properties at their final values. This implies that the time to
>> >> reject a commit would be proportional to the size of the commit (which
>> >> isn't the case when it comes to conflict detection).
>> > Can't you do what stefan2 suggested, but in libsvn_repos? The repos
>> > layer commit editor would remember for each file whether its textdelta
>> > has added a new 0x0D byte, then at close_edit() it would iterate all
>> > files in the commit --- and for each file only compare its svn:eol-style
>> > property to the by-now-precomputed "did it it contain a 0x0D" bit.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how efficient it would be to parse for 0x0D's in
>> > libsvn_repos, though. Maybe we should make this optional.
>> It's not enough to just look for \r in the delta stream. Certainly
>> wouldn't help with historically broken files.
> I wasn't trying to fix historically broken files. (That would require
> a fulltext scan --- that's not a cheap computation.) Do you see another
> problem?

Indeed, historically broken files are not the focus here. They're
broken in the history of the repository anyway, so that's not really
fixable anymore. But if we can prevent new broken files from entering
the repository, that would be great.

>> Maybe that's a good idea, but /why/ put it in libsvn_repos when it's
>> much easier and cleaner to just provide some standard hooks, written in
>> C and distributed with releases, that the admin plug in if she feels
>> like it? Surely that's what hooks are for.
> The argument is that a Subversion server should be enforcing
> Subversion's invariants.
> That said, I'm not opposed to doing it via standard hooks. It's a good
> way to introduce the feature in a way that allows more easily changing
> it before it hits the APIs and their strict compatibility rules.

Yes, that would be fine I think. I like Ivan's suggestion of creating
a new standard 'svnhooks' program or something like that, which can
then be part of standard distributions.

Received on 2012-12-10 12:54:15 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.