Sure, I can add your +1 ... both backports? 1.8 and 1.9 ? On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation on why you prefer the tweak here. With that > explanation feel free to add my +1. (Or I will add it myself later tonight). > > Bert > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:27 PM > *To:* dev@subversion.apache.org > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > >> On 19.04.2015 10:57, Bert Huijben wrote: >> >> Why do you set the header if you can just set the parsed depth value >> even more locally as I did in my patch I sent as reply on the thread? >> >> >> The patch Greg and Stefan cooked up kicks in a lot earlier in the request >> processing flow, and by modifying the request record instead of some >> internal structure it's more future-proof. IMO, that's a good thing. >> > > Well... Bert's patch sets depth=0 for ALL walks when the method is COPY. > That is unsafe, as you don't know *why* the walk is being performed. We > only want to disable a specific walk, and the Depth:0 header trick does > exactly that. > > To be fair, one day, if mod_dav ever decides to be strict about the Depth > header matching the resource type (file vs dir), then this could break. But > I don't see that happening, as it hasn't in over 15 years. > > The patch that Stefan and I came up with is just moving Johan's "set Depth > header" concept into code. > > Hat tip to Johan for finding the workaround! > > Cheers, > -g > >
