On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Julian Foad wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Stefan Sperling]
Have you seen ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-wc-ng-check-override ?
I think that's the workaround you need. Log of the branch below.
It's already nominated for backport, so if you like it, please vote :)

I hadn't seen it.  Yes, this solves the problem - but I'm not sure this
'permission denied' should really require a workaround like

export SVN_I_LOVE_CORRUPTED_WORKING_COPIES_SO_DISABLE_CHECK_FOR_WC_NG=yes

Jon, what's your opinion on Stefan's approach?

I'm not Jon but my opinion is that we need a bug fix, not a work-around,
and that Peter's patch
<http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-02/0431.shtml> is the sort of fix
we need. (I haven't reviewed it, just glanced over it.)

Let's check I understood the problem correctly: User has 1.6 client and
1.6 WCs, no 1.7 stuff involved at all. User's system has a WC rooted at
the file system root: '/.svn' exists and is not readable by this user.
In some normal operations that used to work with svn 1.6.x, svn 1.6.9
tries to look for a file '/.svn/wc.db' and throws an error because it's
denied access to that directory.

Not sure if this thread died - I thought maybe it was just because I wasn't subscribed to the list, but I don't see any responses on the web page.

I had another thought about this that I wanted to make sure people had thought of for 1.7 - I thought it strange that I experienced my problem with /.svn rather than /home/.svn and I'm wondering if the directories are being traversed in the right order when looking for the root .svn directory. If I understand what 1.7 is going to do, then I think the search for the root node (if it isn't stored somewhere else) that you have to go up one directory at a time, and you can't start with /.svn first. Just a thought, and probably you've already thought about it, but I'm not sure why svn 1.6 didn't complain about the permissions of a subdirectory first.


--
Jon Daley
http://jon.limedaley.com
~~
There are no traffic jams when you go the extra mile.
-- Anonymous

Reply via email to