On 04/14/2011 11:47 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM, <rhuij...@apache.org> wrote: >> Author: rhuijben >> Date: Wed Apr 13 21:47:24 2011 >> New Revision: 1091928 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1091928&view=rev >> Log: >> Fix issue #2381: "Cannot commit multiple WC paths which lack a common parent >> directory" by making the commit processor determine which locks it needs in >> which working copy. > > I've not looked at the code, but am just wondering about a theoretical > point here. Could the approach fall victim to the same cause as issue > #3242? Specifically, if all the commits are done in the same editor > drive, and that editor drive is rooted somewhere outside of the > readable or writable location for the user doing the commit, would we > get authz denials?
I would expect that this could happen, yes. But the same could happen in a single working copy, too, couldn't it? I'm thinking of a sparse checkout at the root with authz like this: [repos:/] username = r [repos:/trunk] username = rw [repos:/branches] username = rw And then 'username' tries to commit to both the trunk and a branch at the same time. > (Just another reason to introduce the eXecute bit in our authz paradigm...) +1! -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
