subversion-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1144316 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_repos: commit.c fs-wrap.c
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:03:48 GMT
Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> 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

Mime
View raw message