Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:32:34PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf
>>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 17:28:19 +0300:
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 15:04:39 +0100:
> Please update the doc string, which currently begins "Valida
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:32:34PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf
>
> > To: Julian Foad
> > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 5:13
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't validate properties during deletion.
> >
> >
Daniel Shahaf
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 5:13
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't validate properties during deletion.
>
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 17:28:19 +0300:
>> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, J
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 17:28:19 +0300:
> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 15:04:39 +0100:
> > Please update the doc string, which currently begins "Validate that
> > property @a name is valid for use in a Subversion repository; return @c
> > SVN_ERR_REPOS_BAD_ARGS if
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
>> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > I still think the logic better belongs inside
>svn_repos__validate_prop().
>> > (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need
>to
>> > a
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 15:04:39 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
> >> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> > I still think the logic better belongs inside
> > svn_repos__validate_prop().
> >> > (
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
>> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > I still think the logic better belongs inside
> svn_repos__validate_prop().
>> > (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need to
>>
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:00:46 -0400:
> On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I still think the logic better belongs inside svn_repos__validate_prop().
> > (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need to
> > accept NULL values.)
> >
> > ---
On 06/21/2013 06:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I still think the logic better belongs inside svn_repos__validate_prop().
> (Not the least because it has three other callers which also need to
> accept NULL values.)
>
> --- subversion/libsvn_repos/fs-wrap.c (revision 1495373)
> +++ subversion/lib
Arwin Arni wrote on Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:07:00 +0530:
> On 06/20/2013 06:46 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:52PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
>>> This poses a problem when it comes to very ol
On 06/20/2013 07:01 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
Arwin Arni wrote:
Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property. This poses a
problem when it comes to very old repositories that contain "invalid"
properties committed by very old clients that didn't perform these
validations.
What
On 06/20/2013 06:46 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:52PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
Hi,
Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
This poses a problem when it comes to very old repositories that
contain "invalid" properties committed by very old cli
On 06/20/2013 06:30 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
Perhaps the better change is to make svn_repos__validate_prop() early-out
(with success, of course) on a NULL value and adjust the rest of the code
therein accordingly. I can see the benefit in flagging the *addition* (or
modification) of a non-re
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> What cases are you talking about, specifically?
[...]
> Agreed. We discussed this before, at least in terms of the command-line
> client,
> and that was the conclusion we agreed on. The principle should apply
> consistently, so +1 to fix any APIs or wherever you're se
Arwin Arni wrote:
> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property. This poses
> a
> problem when it comes to very old repositories that contain "invalid"
> properties committed by very old clients that didn't perform these
> validations.
What cases are you talking about, sp
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:15:52PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Properties are validated regardless of the action on the property.
> This poses a problem when it comes to very old repositories that
> contain "invalid" properties committed by very old clients that
> didn't perform these valid
Perhaps the better change is to make svn_repos__validate_prop() early-out
(with success, of course) on a NULL value and adjust the rest of the code
therein accordingly. I can see the benefit in flagging the *addition* (or
modification) of a non-regular property (which is the first test that
functi
17 matches
Mail list logo
