Re: Permissions need for deletion

On 25 August 2016 at 12:30, Stefan Hett <stefan_at_egosoft.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 11:13 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>
>> On 25 August 2016 at 11:50, Vacelet, Manuel <manuel.vacelet_at_enalean.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Vacelet, Manuel
>>> <manuel.vacelet_at_enalean.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> oops I hit shift+enter :/
>>>> see my message below
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Vacelet, Manuel
>>>> <manuel.vacelet_at_enalean.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I got a machine that was bumped from 1.6.x (centos6 default) to 1.8.16
>>>>> (thanks wandisco!).
>>>>> I identified a change of behaviour but failed to find an explanation in
>>>>> book or change log.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here we go, given a SVNAccessFile like:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------->8-------------
>>>> [groups]
>>>> members = alice
>>>> admin = bob
>>>>
>>>> [/]
>>>> * =
>>>> @members = r
>>>> @admin = rw
>>>>
>>>> [/tags]
>>>> @members = rw
>>>> -------------8<-------------
>>>>
>>>> WIth svn 1.6, as alice, I cannot rm /tags
>>>> Whereas with svn 1.8 I now can.
>>>>
>>>> Is this detailed somewhere ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Fun fact: the behaviour change also depending on the version of svn
>>> client
>>> used.
>>> For a given svn 1.8 server, I can delete /tags with svn 1.7, 1.8 & svn
>>> 1.9
>>> client but not with svn 1.6.
>>> I failed to find in 1.7 release note something that explains this change.
>>>
>> It was bug in Subversion 1.7 that remove operation requires access to
>> repository root:
>> SVN-4219: svn delete fails with "403 Forbidden" if root is not readable
>> [1]
>>
>> This problem was fixed in Subversion 1.8. It's not server-side change.
>> It was client problem accessing repository root, while it's not
>> needed.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4219
>
> According to SVN-4219 the issue was present in 1.7 and also fixed in 1.7, or
> is the JIRA issue record wrong in this regards?
> Also I take it that with Manuel's report here, the issue was not only
> present in 1.7 but also existed on 1.6. Otherwise I think I'm missing
> something.
>
The SVN-4219 is duplicate issue for SVN-4332.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov