Sure, I can add your +1 ... both backports? 1.8 and 1.9 ?
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation on why you prefer the tweak here. With that
> explanation feel free to add my +1. (Or I will add it myself later tonight).
>
> Bert
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:27 PM
> *To:* dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19.04.2015 10:57, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>
>> Why do you set the header if you can just set the parsed depth value
>> even more locally as I did in my patch I sent as reply on the thread?
>>
>>
>> The patch Greg and Stefan cooked up kicks in a lot earlier in the request
>> processing flow, and by modifying the request record instead of some
>> internal structure it's more future-proof. IMO, that's a good thing.
>>
>
> Well... Bert's patch sets depth=0 for ALL walks when the method is COPY.
> That is unsafe, as you don't know *why* the walk is being performed. We
> only want to disable a specific walk, and the Depth:0 header trick does
> exactly that.
>
> To be fair, one day, if mod_dav ever decides to be strict about the Depth
> header matching the resource type (file vs dir), then this could break. But
> I don't see that happening, as it hasn't in over 15 years.
>
> The patch that Stefan and I came up with is just moving Johan's "set Depth
> header" concept into code.
>
> Hat tip to Johan for finding the workaround!
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
>
Received on 2015-04-19 20:24:22 CEST