If that information ( Lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read) was in the svnserv.conf file, it would have saved me a few hours of troubleshooting.
Thanks, Bill On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>wrote: > Bill Cebula wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 18:30:23 -0500: > > Phillip, > > > > Thanks for the reply. If the line anon-access = read is commented out, > > can't that be interpreted as anon-access = none on startup of the server? > > > > No, lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read. > (and that can't be changed for compatibility reasons) > > Daniel > > > It seems like a 1 line conditional statement is all that is needed to fix > > this particular issue. I realize it is related to a larger bug. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Philip Martin > > <philip.mar...@wandisco.com>wrote: > > > > > Bill Cebula <bill.ceb...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > I would expect the same behavior whether the* anon-access* line is > > > > commented or whether it is specified as *none*. However, if the > > > > anon-access line is commented, you get the error even though you the* > > > > authz* specifies read/write privileges for > > > > the entire repository. > > > > > > This is a known bug. The svn:// protocol chooses either anonymous or > > > authenticated access right at the start of the connection and has no > way > > > to upgrade later. > > > > > > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2712 > > > > > > -- > > > Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: > > > http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download > > > >
