Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> writes: >> Perhaps. svn_repos__validate_prop is also used by >> svn_repos_fs_change_txn_props, is it appropriate to validate mergeinfo >> there? >> > > Why not? No one should be setting svn:mergeinfo as a txnprop (or > revprop). (and if they do, they shouldn't use the svn:* namespace) > >> We should probably split the validate function into two, one for node >> props and one for revprops. >> > > Given that we don't have any SVN_PROP_* whose semantics differ when it's > set as a revprop v. when it's set as a nodeprop, I'm not sure what this > would gain; I'm ±0.
Huh? They differ totally. It makes no sense to check svn:mergeinfo syntax valid set as a revprop, we should either allow all values or none. > Unless, perhaps, you want to add verification that svn:mergeinfo isn't > set as a revprop and svn:log isn't set as a nodeprop? Feel free to do > so, but then I suggest you'll also teach svnsync et al to strip those > (ill-set) properties to avoid breaking any repositories out there that > do have svn:mergeinfo revprops and svn:log nodeprops. Old repositories are already problem. The existing svn:mergeinfo validation is going to prevent people dumping/loading repositories with invalid svn:mergeinfo on nodes. We don't want to add to the problem by adding syntax checking where we don't need it unless we *also* add the stripping code. -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com
