All, Apologies for the delayed response. Yes, my report was not about how the files were created when deployed, but rather how they were created within a working copy when an 'svn mv' was done. I probably wouldn't have considered that it might be a bug if it weren't for the inconsistency: if you perform those same steps against a *directory*, it retains the ACL as it would if you had done a 'mv'.
Anyhow, I'm afraid I don't have the working environment to test this against current, but if you would still like a bug report I would be happy to submit one. Mark On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:46 AM, Stephen Butler <sbut...@elego.de> wrote: > > On May 4, 2010, at 8:39 , Karl Fogel wrote: > > > Mark Slade <markandrewsl...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Per your Issue Tracker Guidelines, I am seeking somebody who agrees > >> that this is a bug before I submit it. > >> > >> Overview: For files, 'svn mv' does not properly inherit ACL > >> permissions from the parent directory. > >> > >> Steps to reproduce (from a subversion working directory): > >> 1. setfacl -d -m user:$USER:r-x . > >> 2. touch foobar > >> 3. svn add foobar > >> 4. svn commit -m 'test' foobar > >> 5. svn mv foobar barfoo > >> 6. getfacl barfoo > >> > >> If you check the ACL for barfoo after steps 2, 3, and 4, you will see > >> that it has properly inherited the user:jdoe:r-x permission. After > >> step 5, you will see that barfoo has not. You can circumvent this > >> behavior by using "mv" instead of "svn mv" in step 5. In this case, > >> you need to "svn delete foobar" and "svn add barfoo" before you can > >> commit the move. > >> > >> Details: > >> CentOS release 5.4 (Final), svn 1.4.2 (from yum) > >> > >> I'm not sure what else is relevant, so fire away if you have questions. > > > > So just to clarify: > > > > The expectation is *not* that Subversion would version these ACLS, but > > rather that, on the client side, an 'svn mv foo bar' would preserve > > foo's ACLS so that bar has the same ACLs (locally). > > > > IOW, you would not expect that when the 'svn mv' is committed and > > someone *else* checks out a working copy with the new bar in it, that > > bar to have the ACLs, right? > > > > (Btw, I think it's better to just use "foo" and "bar" -- it's a bit hard > > to keep track of "foobar" vs "barfoo", mentally :-) .) > > > > Stephen Butler, I saw your later followup, but were you clear on how > > limited Mark's proposal actually is? > > > > -Karl > > > Ooops, I see I misunderstood the proposal. Thanks, Karl. > > So, Mark, go ahead and open the issue. It'd be nice to reproduce it > using the latest Subversion release (1.6.11). > > Cheers, > Steve > > -- > Stephen Butler | Software Developer > elego Software Solutions GmbH > Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 | 13355 Berlin | Germany > fon: +49 30 2345 8696 | mobile: +49 163 25 45 015 > fax: +49 30 2345 8695 | http://www.elegosoft.com > Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194 > > >
