On 25 August 2016 at 12:30, Stefan Hett <ste...@egosoft.com> wrote: > On 8/25/2016 11:13 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> >> On 25 August 2016 at 11:50, Vacelet, Manuel <manuel.vace...@enalean.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Vacelet, Manuel >>> <manuel.vace...@enalean.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> oops I hit shift+enter :/ >>>> see my message below >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Vacelet, Manuel >>>> <manuel.vace...@enalean.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I got a machine that was bumped from 1.6.x (centos6 default) to 1.8.16 >>>>> (thanks wandisco!). >>>>> I identified a change of behaviour but failed to find an explanation in >>>>> book or change log. >>>>> >>>>> Here we go, given a SVNAccessFile like: >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------->8------------- >>>> [groups] >>>> members = alice >>>> admin = bob >>>> >>>> [/] >>>> * = >>>> @members = r >>>> @admin = rw >>>> >>>> [/tags] >>>> @members = rw >>>> -------------8<------------- >>>> >>>> WIth svn 1.6, as alice, I cannot rm /tags >>>> Whereas with svn 1.8 I now can. >>>> >>>> Is this detailed somewhere ? >>> >>> >>> Fun fact: the behaviour change also depending on the version of svn >>> client >>> used. >>> For a given svn 1.8 server, I can delete /tags with svn 1.7, 1.8 & svn >>> 1.9 >>> client but not with svn 1.6. >>> I failed to find in 1.7 release note something that explains this change. >>> >> It was bug in Subversion 1.7 that remove operation requires access to >> repository root: >> SVN-4219: svn delete fails with "403 Forbidden" if root is not readable >> [1] >> >> This problem was fixed in Subversion 1.8. It's not server-side change. >> It was client problem accessing repository root, while it's not >> needed. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4219 > > According to SVN-4219 the issue was present in 1.7 and also fixed in 1.7, or > is the JIRA issue record wrong in this regards? > Also I take it that with Manuel's report here, the issue was not only > present in 1.7 but also existed on 1.6. Otherwise I think I'm missing > something. > The SVN-4219 is duplicate issue for SVN-4332.
-- Ivan Zhakov
