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

Re: Subversion repository config problem

From: Tony Butt <Tony.Butt_at_cea.com.au>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:03:30 +1100

On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:50 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Tony Butt wrote on Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 15:07:55 +1100:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We have recently upgraded our subversion servers from 1.6.17 to 1.7.1,
> > and as I usually do when making the 'semi-major' upgrade, dumped and
> > reloaded the repository.
> >
> 1.6 and 1.7 use the same backend format. dump/load gains nothing. And
> the release notes say that...
Yes, I found that out the day after I went throught the dunp/load
process. The back end format may be the same, but the file permissions
are not, which has had a flow-on effect to our current practices.
> > Here I noticed 2 things:
> > 1) the individual revs and revprops files are now read-only, previously
> > they were read/write for group and owner.
> > 2) the svn+ssh committed files were owned by the committing user (myself
> > in the test case)
> >
> > I tried to edit the log message of a commit made with svn+ssh://, using
> > http:// access, and failed. Now the strange thing, after changing a
> > different commit message for a test (using http:// access only,
> > successsfully), drafting this email, and re-checking the revprops file
> > in question, it was now owned by www-data - the apache user.
> >
> We make rev files read only intentionally. I don't remember offhand
> how revprop files would be affected, but in any case those are never
> changed either --- we only ever rename(2) new versions on top of old
> ones.
> And, anyway, I really don't understand your bottom line. Are you saying
> the new behaviour is non backwards compatible? That it should be
> changed? Or just that it's surprising?
The new behaviour is slightly different, and slightly incompatible in
our corner case. It was more surprising than anything else, and I wanted
to check that I didn't need to tweak the repository config in some way
to allow for this - possibly some subtlety with umasks that I was not
aware of.
> > In short, this is unexpected behaviour for me, but not exactly broken.
> >
> > Tony Butt
> > CEA Technologies
> > Canberra
> Next time can you try to be more concise, rather than bury your question
> somewhere in the middle. Thanks.
OK -
Repository behaviour is slightly different to 1.6.17, as detailed
(verbosely) above.
Asking for advice as to whether this is a defect, or configuration
This may bite anyone that uses multiple access methods and revprop
Humour intended too. :-)

Tony Butt
CEA Technologies

Received on 2011-11-09 01:04:44 CET

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.