Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-02-20 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Den mån 5 feb. 2024 kl 07:38 skrev Branko Čibej : > On 04.02.2024 00:31, Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote: > > Daniel Sahlberg > writes: > > > Index: subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c > === > --- subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c (revision 1915064)

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-02-04 Thread Branko Čibej
On 04.02.2024 00:31, Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote: Daniel Sahlberg writes: Index: subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c === --- subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c (revision 1915064) +++ subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c (working copy) @@ -2535,7 +2535,14

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-02-03 Thread Evgeny Kotkov via dev
Daniel Sahlberg writes: >> Index: subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c >> === >> --- subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c (revision 1915064) >> +++ subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c (working copy) >> @@ -2535,7 +2535,14 @@ svn_io__is_finfo_read_only(svn_boo

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-30 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2024-01-22 04:05:04 +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 13.01.2024 09:58, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > > Since there wasn't any replies to this and I think the code was working > > fine in all my tests, I comitted as r1915214. Although I finally decided > > to solve the spurious revert messages in a dif

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-29 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Den mån 22 jan. 2024 kl 04:05 skrev Branko Čibej : > On 13.01.2024 09:58, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > > Since there wasn't any replies to this and I think the code was working > fine in all my tests, I comitted as r1915214. Although I finally decided to > solve the spurious revert messages in a diffe

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 13.01.2024 09:58, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: Since there wasn't any replies to this and I think the code was working fine in all my tests, I comitted as r1915214. Although I finally decided to solve the spurious revert messages in a different way, see a separate followup/committ e-mail. I thin

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-13 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Den ons 10 jan. 2024 kl 10:45 skrev Stefan Sperling : > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > Interesting discussion. I agree it should at least be documented, and > > perhaps be made a bit more clear from the output of 'revert' (but not > > sure how far we can go wi

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-13 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 08:45 skrev Daniel Sahlberg < daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > When researching the spurious revert messages reported by Vincent Lefevre > [1], I was looking at the code in svn_io__is_finfo_read_only() and > svn_io_is_file_executable(). It gets the current UID and GID

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-10 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2024-01-10 09:44:51 +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Interesting discussion. I agree it should at least be documented, and > perhaps be made a bit more clear from the output of 'revert' (but not > sure how far we can go without breaking compat). Changing the current > behavior is probably a more

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-10 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Interesting discussion. I agree it should at least be documented, and > perhaps be made a bit more clear from the output of 'revert' (but not > sure how far we can go without breaking compat). Changing the current > behavior is prob

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-10 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:46 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2024-01-05 11:29:16 +0100, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:51 skrev Johan Corveleyn : > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Daniel Sahlberg > > > wrote: > > > ... > > > > Since the file doesn't have svn:needs-lock

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-06 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2024-01-05 11:29:16 +0100, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:51 skrev Johan Corveleyn : > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Daniel Sahlberg > > wrote: > > ... > > > Since the file doesn't have svn:needs-lock it should be RW [and the > > Reverted message comes from Subversion

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-05 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:51 skrev Johan Corveleyn : > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Daniel Sahlberg > wrote: > ... > > Since the file doesn't have svn:needs-lock it should be RW [and the > Reverted message comes from Subversion trying to restore the W flag ...] > > Should it? Intuitively I'd sa

Re: Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-05 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Daniel Sahlberg wrote: ... > Since the file doesn't have svn:needs-lock it should be RW [and the Reverted > message comes from Subversion trying to restore the W flag ...] Should it? Intuitively I'd say: since the file doesn't have svn:needs-lock Subversion shouldn

Changing the permission checks in libsvn_subr/io.c

2024-01-04 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Hi, When researching the spurious revert messages reported by Vincent Lefevre [1], I was looking at the code in svn_io__is_finfo_read_only() and svn_io_is_file_executable(). It gets the current UID and GID using the APR function apr_uid_current() and then compares to see if the owner of the file i