If that information ( Lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as
anon-access=read) was in the svnserv.conf file, it would have saved me a few
hours of troubleshooting.
Thanks,
Bill
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>wrote:
> Bill Cebula wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 18:30:23 -0500:
> > Phillip,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. If the line anon-access = read is commented out,
> > can't that be interpreted as anon-access = none on startup of the server?
> >
>
> No, lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read.
> (and that can't be changed for compatibility reasons)
>
> Daniel
>
> > It seems like a 1 line conditional statement is all that is needed to fix
> > this particular issue. I realize it is related to a larger bug.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Philip Martin
> > <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Bill Cebula <bill.cebula_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I would expect the same behavior whether the* anon-access* line is
> > > > commented or whether it is specified as *none*. However, if the
> > > > anon-access line is commented, you get the error even though you the*
> > > > authz* specifies read/write privileges for
> > > > the entire repository.
> > >
> > > This is a known bug. The svn:// protocol chooses either anonymous or
> > > authenticated access right at the start of the connection and has no
> way
> > > to upgrade later.
> > >
> > > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2712
> > >
> > > --
> > > Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
> > > http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
> > >
>
Received on 2013-03-22 03:58:13 CET