umm... i'm confused as to 'why' your doing this. I mean i've used a single
working copy to handle my server config file backups, but in development it
seems more practical that the developer just check out a copy for him self
as sharing a working copy seemingly eliminates what svn is actually designed
to be used for.
From: Steve Bakke [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:31 PM
Subject: File permissions behavior change from 1.2.3/1.3.0 to 1.4.x
I attempted to first raise this issue on the subversion users' mailing list
a week or two ago, but got no response. I'm pretty confident that this is a
bug or at least it is an undocumented change in behavior from prior
We have a setup where there is a centralized working copy accessed by
multiple users. As a result, having the correct permissions set on things
makes or breaks this working model. Our working copy directories are all
set up to have read+write user and group permissions.
We are working with a number of binary files that we have set up to have
needs-lock properties. Prior to subversion 1.4.0, the behavior of the 'svn
lock' command was such that the user executing the command would assume
ownership of the file and get write permissions. Effectively, it would
delete the original file in the working copy and then copy a fresh version
in place. (at least this is what it appears to do) It works this way in
both 1.2.3 and 1.3.0. Meanwhile, svn unlock leaves the file read-only
across the board.
With 1.4.0, it now reports an error that it can't change the file
permissions. (I believe it is also the same with 1.4.2) This is a pretty
significant change in behavior. I imagine that most people haven't noticed
since most people use private working copies.
Can somebody confirm that this is a bug? It is very easy to reproduce. We
managed to work around the issue, but it's an ugly hack to a wrapper script
to move the file and copy it back so that the user can assume ownership and
call 'svn lock'. If somebody wants to lock a large number of files, it
takes a lot longer now.
Received on Thu Dec 14 20:42:37 2006