Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cooke, Mark [mailto:mark.cooke_at_siemens.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:38 PM
> To: Jans Ullrich; subversion-2011a_at_ryandesign.com
> Cc: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Unexpected behaviour with SVNPath/SVNParentPath mixture
>
> > The question is, why not? According to the Apache docs, it
> > should work, so it looks like a problem in subversion. Can
> > this be considered a bug? Should I file an issue?
>
> ...because when you use the SVNParentPath directive, apache has no
> further involvement in any "child" paths, all paths that start with the
> parent root are passed to the DAV handler... You can get round this by
> specifiying separate handlers for the separate paths using multiple
> SVNPath blocks but again, anything below those paths is handled by DAV
> and not apache.
>
> This is different from nesting access restrictions to artifacts that are
> all handled by apache (i.e. uri <Location>s or local <Directory>s so
> those docs you mention do not apply in this scenario.
Thanks for the explanation. I think I get it now, just the effect with the path component suddenly doubling still puzzles me a bit. I still suspect a bug or misfeature there, since I'd have thought it should either work not at all or work as expected.
But since it looks like we have a workaround, I guess I can live with that.
> > We'd like to provide our users with the ability to create
> > repositories themselves, then possibly promote select
> > repositories to a different permission set. Restricting
> > ourselves to only using SVNPath would be inconvenient... ;-)
>
> You could consider using one (set of) parent path(s) for restricted
> repos and another (set) for less restricted ones?
I'll have to check that, but I suspect it will be hard because a lot of our build architecture is already using these paths. The modified permissions are the new part. But I think the idea is good, maybe we can have a completely different location for the SVNPath configs (like /svn/parentpathtest_ext/...) then we should have no conflict, should we?
Thanks for the idea and the explanation above!
Cheers,
Ulli
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: This e-mail may contain confidential information
intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please do not disclose it to anyone, notify
the sender promptly, and delete the message from your system.
Thank you.
Received on 2011-03-25 14:25:37 CET