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

Re: File permissions behavior change from 1.2.3/1.3.0 to 1.4.x

From: Tim Hill <drtimhill_at_comcast.net>
Date: 2006-12-15 01:02:13 CET

I'm with Garrett on this one -- I think you should carefully think
about if what you're doing is the correct approach. Basically, by
sharing a working copy you are moving outside of the "comfort zone"
for Subversion workflows, and this is really why you are seeing this

That aside, it does look like you have identified a change in
behavior in 1.4.x, though I'm not sure if I would class this as a bug
or a bug fix <g>. You might try opening a bug or checking the bug
database to see if this was a "by design" change.


On Dec 14, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Garrett McGrath wrote:

> These btw should be getting cc'd to the subversion user list. and
> that sounds like what versions vs. trunks are used for really...
> -Garrett
> From: Steve Bakke [mailto:steven.bakke@amd.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 3:34 PM
> To: Garrett McGrath
> Subject: Re: File permissions behavior change from 1.2.3/1.3.0 to
> 1.4.x
> No, the repository is the method for checkpointing revisions just
> as with private working copies. We also publish releases in a
> different area which are tied to tagged versions in the
> repository. The only difference is that there may be multiple
> people editing data in the same working copy.
> Our central working copy (we actually have at least two separate
> ones) only has the latest version of things. It doesnít contain
> all revisions. When we need to work with stable data such as to do
> a build, we checkout data into a private working copy (either from
> tag or trunk).
> -Steve
> On 12/14/06 3:07 PM, "Garrett McGrath" <gmcgrath@Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> yes but what your trying to do seems counter intuitive to the way
> subversion is setup to operate is what it appears like to me.
> That's all i'm really saying. Basically you take subversion put it
> 'somewhere' using svnserve or apache, then everyone checks out a
> copy locally that they work on. When you lock a file that lock is
> actually done in the svn repository not the working directory.
> People who don't own the lock can't commit a file involved with
> that lock to the repository because it's locked not based on the
> permission system that's in place. when you check out a copy from
> the repository all files become 'yours' (to my understanding at
> least). So you should under this model be replacing the shared
> working area with the physical repository (because that's what it
> is anyway) and then have the people involved check out thier copies
> locally to work on them.
> This is just my understanding as to how subversion is 'supposed' to
> work. If this was working for you before hand then i dunno what i
> can say to help you there but it's not really a bug if it's not
> part of the way subversion is supposed to work in the first place.
> -Garrett
> From: Steve Bakke [mailto:steven.bakke@amd.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:46 PM
> To: Garrett McGrath
> Subject: Re: File permissions behavior change from 1.2.3/1.3.0 to
> 1.4.x
> That decision wasnít mine. :^) I would prefer to have private work
> areas. Subversion just happened to be the choice that I made to
> use for revision control.
> I mainly want subversion as a better CVS that handles binary data
> nicely.
> -Steve
> On 12/14/06 2:41 PM, "Garrett McGrath" <gmcgrath@Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> Steve,
> 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.
> -Garrett
> From: Steve Bakke [mailto:steven.bakke@amd.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:31 PM
> To: users@subversion.tigris.org
> 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 usersí
> mailing list a week or two ago, but got no response. Iím pretty
> confident that this is a bug or at least it is an undocumented
> change in behavior from prior releases.
> 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 Ďsvn lockí 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 canít 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
> havenít 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 itís an ugly
> hack to a wrapper script to move the file and copy it back so that
> the user can assume ownership and call Ďsvn lockí. If somebody
> wants to lock a large number of files, it takes a lot longer now.
> Thanks,
> Steve Bakke
Received on Fri Dec 15 01:02:54 2006

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

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