Branko Čibej wrote on Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 13:13:05 +0100:
> On 20 Jan 2015 12:54, "Ivan Zhakov" wrote:
>
> > On 20 January 2015 at 14:15, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > On 19.01.2015 18:10, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > >> I've implemented proposed behavior in r1653032.
> > >>
> > >> On 18 January 2015 at
On 20 January 2015 at 15:13, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Right, understood. So 'hiding path" is not wording that mod_authz_svn can
> use, but we can come up with some authz-specific wording that's different
> from the current "access denied," right?
>
Yes, right.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Right, understood. So 'hiding path" is not wording that mod_authz_svn can
use, but we can come up with some authz-specific wording that's different
from the current "access denied," right?
On 20 Jan 2015 12:54, "Ivan Zhakov" wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 14:15, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 19.01.
On 20 January 2015 at 14:15, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 19.01.2015 18:10, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> I've implemented proposed behavior in r1653032.
>>
>> On 18 January 2015 at 06:48, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> It would be nice if the the logged message should be different in that
>>> case, too. That is:
On 19.01.2015 18:10, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I've implemented proposed behavior in r1653032.
>
> On 18 January 2015 at 06:48, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> It would be nice if the the logged message should be different in that
>> case, too. That is: there should be some indication, besides the
>> differen
I've implemented proposed behavior in r1653032.
On 16 January 2015 at 22:52, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
[...]
>
> As for log levels, is there any reason to log the implicit read attempts
> at a level higher than "debug"? I have no opinion about the log level
> for the explicit ones.
>
Some audit t
Ben Reser wrote on Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 14:09:45 -0800:
> On 1/16/15 11:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > As for log levels, is there any reason to log the implicit read attempts
> > at a level higher than "debug"? I have no opinion about the log level
> > for the explicit ones.
>
> I can see s
On 1/16/15 11:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> As for log levels, is there any reason to log the implicit read attempts
> at a level higher than "debug"? I have no opinion about the log level
> for the explicit ones.
I can see some people possibly wanting this information for auditing purposes.
On 16.01.2015 20:52, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 02:18 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> But I'm not sure that current behavior is the best. I'm thinking to
>> implement the following logic in mod_authz_svn: use different log
>> level whether access denied for subrequest or for primary request
On 01/16/2015 02:18 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> But I'm not sure that current behavior is the best. I'm thinking to
> implement the following logic in mod_authz_svn: use different log
> level whether access denied for subrequest or for primary request (the
> URL user actually tried to access).
>
> Doe
When doing operations like 'svn log' or 'svn ls' Subversion hides
paths that are unreadable for user.
I.e. if repository contains the following directories:
/public
/private
And authorization file looks like this:
[/]
* = r
[/private]
* =
Then 'svn ls REPOROOT' command will return only /public d
11 matches
Mail list logo
