Hi, Arwin,
Von: Arwin Arni [mailto:ar...@collab.net]
> On 06/20/2013 07:01 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Arwin Arni wrote:
> >> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
> >> This poses a problem when it comes to very old repositories that contain
> "invalid"
> >> properties
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:32:34PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf
>>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 17:28:19 +0300:
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 15:04:39 +0100:
> Please update the doc string, which currently begins "Valida
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:32:34PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf
>
> > To: Julian Foad
> > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 5:13
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't validate properties during deletion.
> >
> >
Daniel Shahaf
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 5:13
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't validate properties during deletion.
>
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 17:28:19 +0300:
>> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, J
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 17:28:19 +0300:
> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 15:04:39 +0100:
> > Please update the doc string, which currently begins "Validate that
> > property @a name is valid for use in a Subversion repository; return @c
> > SVN_ERR_REPOS_BAD_ARGS if
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
>> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > I still think the logic better belongs inside
>svn_repos__validate_prop().
>> > (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need
>to
>> > a
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 15:04:39 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
> >> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> > I still think the logic better belongs inside
> > svn_repos__validate_prop().
> >> > (
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
>> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > I still think the logic better belongs inside
> svn_repos__validate_prop().
>> > (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need to
>>
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I still think the logic better belongs inside svn_repos__validate_prop().
> > (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need to
> > accept NULL values.)
> >
> > ---
On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I still think the logic better belongs inside svn_repos__validate_prop().
> (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need to
> accept NULL values.)
>
> --- subversion/libsvn_repos/fs-wrap.c (revision 1495373)
> +++ subversion/lib
Arwin Arni wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:07:00 +0530:
> On 06/20/2013 06:46 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:52PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
>>> This poses a problem when it comes to very ol
On 06/20/2013 07:01 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
Arwin Arni wrote:
Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property. This poses a
problem when it comes to very old repositories that contain "invalid"
properties committed by very old clients that didn't perform these
validations.
What
On 06/20/2013 06:46 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:52PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
Hi,
Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
This poses a problem when it comes to very old repositories that
contain "invalid" properties committed by very old cli
On 06/20/2013 06:30 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
Perhaps the better change is to make svn_repos__validate_prop() early-out
(with success, of course) on a NULL value and adjust the rest of the code
therein accordingly. I can see the benefit in flagging the *addition* (or
modification) of a non-re
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> What cases are you talking about, specifically?
[...]
> Agreed. We discussed this before, at least in terms of the command-line
> client,
> and that was the conclusion we agreed on. The principle should apply
> consistently, so +1 to fix any APIs or wherever you're se
Arwin Arni wrote:
> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property. This poses
> a
> problem when it comes to very old repositories that contain "invalid"
> properties committed by very old clients that didn't perform these
> validations.
What cases are you talking about, sp
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:52PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
> This poses a problem when it comes to very old repositories that
> contain "invalid" properties committed by very old clients that
> didn't perform these valid
Perhaps the better change is to make svn_repos__validate_prop() early-out
(with success, of course) on a NULL value and adjust the rest of the code
therein accordingly. I can see the benefit in flagging the *addition* (or
modification) of a non-regular property (which is the first test that
functi
Hi,
Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property. This
poses a problem when it comes to very old repositories that contain
"invalid" properties committed by very old clients that didn't perform
these validations. My contention is that we need to check the validity
of the
19 matches
Mail list logo
