Kamesh Jayachandran <kam...@collab.net> writes: > This patch is with respect to the original thread > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201001.mbox/browser
This one I suppose: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201001.mbox/<4b41f1bd.8090...@collab.net> It includes: "We can proxy this request to the Master but we *should not* do that if it is for read operation." Does something go wrong if the read operation goes to the master or is it just an efficiency thing? > Once this patch gets committed I can commit the mod_dav_svn change to > handle the original commit via outdated proxy issue. Have we seen this other patch yet? > This Patch revs the following public APIs, > > 'svn_client_uuid_from_url', 'svn_client_open_ra_session' and 'svn_ra_open3'. > > For ra_neon and ra_serf layers it sets the http client header > SVN-ACTION with the concerned svn command name. The "SVN-ACTION" name is already used by the operational logging code, I don't know if this matters. > With & Without this patch mergeinfo_test-8 fails both over ra_neon and > ra_serf. > > If there are no objections I will commit this change in next 2 days. This ties an RA session to a single operation name -- that's a new restriction on RA sessions isn't it? It may be the way our clients work at present but clients don't have to work like that, a single session could be used for multiple operations. A client may not even know what operations are going to be carried out until some time after the session has been opened. -- Philip
