Philip Martin wrote on Tue, 24 Jul 2018 23:37 +0100:
> Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> writes:
> > It describes designed behaviour. If we change it, we should do it
> > carefully, as I wrote above. Also I think it turns out that the authz
> > section in the release notes misses a behaviour change or two. It should
> > probably include the whole Inheritance and Disambiguation list, however
> > we end up changing it.
> The most important thing is to document the change in behaviour of the
> non-glob rules between 1.9 and 1.10.
+1; we should document any incompatible changes (regardless of whether
they were intentional or not).
> The problem I have is that I still don't know if the changes are
> intentional. Of these undocumented (in the release notes) changes there
> is one that appears to be intentional and two that could be accidental.
> At least the first, intentional, change produces a run-time error if it
> occurs, the other two just lead to different access being granted, one
> less access the other more access. Anyone using a non-trivial authz
> file in 1.9 has to be very careful upgrading to 1.10.
Sounds like we should encourage people to write unit tests for their
authz files. This would be fairly easy to implement using 'svnauthz
accessof'. We could ship something in tools/ that takes two
inputs, an authz file and a set of expectations, and validates the authz
file against the expectations.
> Is it worth me working on a fix? Can we declare 1.10.0 and 1.10.1 buggy
> and change the behaviour in future 1.10.x? Or are we stuck with 1.10
> being different from 1.9?
(I don't know.)
Received on 2018-07-25 08:21:46 CEST