On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Lieven Govaerts <l...@mobsol.be> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 5, 2012, at 3:11 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: >> >>> On 05.11.2012 00:21, Thomas Åkesson wrote: >>>> I did some tests with curl --head just as a sanity check. It seems to be a >>>> good choice for access control. I primarily wanted to see that HEAD >>>> requests were not allowed in situations where GET is not (e.g. when user >>>> has access in directories below). >>>> >>>> The HEAD requests I performed (minimal curl command) did not cause the >>>> server to provide Content-Length when returning "200 OK". >>> >>> Which is precisely what I was talking about in my other post. Such HEAD >>> responses are invalid. If we implement HEAD, we have to do it correctly. >>> >>> -- Brane >> >> I thought that Serf already issues HEAD requests? Not sure about Neon. >> > No it doesn't, serf only sends the requests provided by svn. (except > when setting up an ssl tunnel, but that's not relevant here).
Are you talking about trunk specifically? When 1.7 was released, a checkout/update done with a Serf client would issue a series of HEAD and PROPFIND requests to the server. I think the changes that cmpilato made to include the properties in the REPORT response removed this on trunk, but I thought it was still true with 1.7. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
