small typo. -he or see +he or she
With regards Kamesh jayachandrancmpil...@apache.org wrote:Author: cmpilato Date: Thu Jul 19 13:54:38 2012 New Revision: 1363336 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1363336&view=rev Log: * notes/authz_policy.txt (REVISION PROPERTIES): It's been years, but document the reasoning behind revprop access gating at all, noting specifically why we don't care about a user's write access to changed paths when considering revprop get/set acccess. Modified: subversion/trunk/notes/authz_policy.txt Modified: subversion/trunk/notes/authz_policy.txt URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/authz_policy.txt?rev=1363336&r1=1363335&r2=1363336&view=diff ============================================================================== --- subversion/trunk/notes/authz_policy.txt (original) +++ subversion/trunk/notes/authz_policy.txt Thu Jul 19 13:54:38 2012 @@ -111,6 +111,21 @@ WHAT USERS SHOULD EXPECT FROM PATH-BASED This situation is quite annoying for people who can't read all the changed-paths. + Notice that for the purposes of gating read and write access to + revision properties, Subversion never considers the user's *write* + access to the changed-paths. To understand the reason behind this, + it helps to understand why revprop access is gated at all. + Subversion assumes that revprops for a given revision -- especially + the log message (svn:log) property -- are likely to reveal paths + modified in that revision. It is precisely because Subversion + tries not to reveal unreadable paths to users that revprop access + is limited as described above. So as long as the user has the + requisite read access to the changed-paths, it's okay if he or see + lacks write access to one or more of those paths when attempting to + set or change revprops -- the information Subversion is trying to + protect through its revprop access control is considered safe to + reveal to that user. + 6. KNOWN LEAKAGE OF UNREADABLE PATHS