Re: Recursive operations and authz

2015-05-16 Thread Branko Čibej
On 16.05.2015 22:32, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> In most CM workflows I've ever seen, a tag is assumed to be a read-only >> snapshot since its creation. FWIW, even with the required authz support >> in place, we still wouldn't have real tags, just as we don't have real >> branches; there's more to the se

Re: Recursive operations and authz

2015-05-16 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On 16 May 2015 at 22:30, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 16.05.2015 20:34, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On 15 May 2015 at 07:04, Stefan Fuhrmann >> wrote: >>> Thank you to everyone who answered! From what I gathered >>> so far is this: >>> >>> to (1) Requirering recursive or non-recursive write on a copy targ

Re: Recursive operations and authz

2015-05-16 Thread Branko Čibej
On 16.05.2015 20:34, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 15 May 2015 at 07:04, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> Thank you to everyone who answered! From what I gathered >> so far is this: >> >> to (1) Requirering recursive or non-recursive write on a copy target >> should not make a difference to a typical authz s

Re: Recursive operations and authz

2015-05-16 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On 15 May 2015 at 07:04, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Thank you to everyone who answered! From what I gathered > so far is this: > > to (1) Requirering recursive or non-recursive write on a copy target > should not make a difference to a typical authz setup with the > current /trunk code. However,

Re: [VOTE] Merging 1.9-cache-improvements to /trunk

2015-05-16 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On 16 May 2015 at 07:48, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Philip Martin > wrote: >> >> Philip Martin writes: >> >> > Philip Martin writes: >> > >> >> Prompted by the warnings I think there are some issues to fix. For >> >> APR_HASH_KEY_STRING keys there is no protectio