Bill Cebula writes:
> I would expect the same behavior whether the* anon-access* line is
> commented or whether it is specified as *none*. However, if the
> anon-access line is commented, you get the error even though you the*
> authz* specifies read/write privileges for
> the entire repository.
Phillip,
Thanks for the reply. If the line anon-access = read is commented out,
can't that be interpreted as anon-access = none on startup of the server?
It seems like a 1 line conditional statement is all that is needed to fix
this particular issue. I realize it is related to a larger bug.
Th
Bill Cebula wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 18:30:23 -0500:
> Phillip,
>
> Thanks for the reply. If the line anon-access = read is commented out,
> can't that be interpreted as anon-access = none on startup of the server?
>
No, lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read.
(and
If that information ( Lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as
anon-access=read) was in the svnserv.conf file, it would have saved me a few
hours of troubleshooting.
Thanks,
Bill
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Bill Cebula wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 18:30:23 -05
Bill Cebula writes:
> If that information ( Lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as
> anon-access=read) was in the svnserv.conf file, it would have saved me a few
> hours of troubleshooting.
Subversion 1.7 (but not 1.6) creates svnserv.conf with the following:
### The sample settings bel
Philip Martin wrote:
> Subversion 1.7 (but not 1.6) creates svnserv.conf with the following:
>
> ### The sample settings below are the defaults and specify that anonymous
> ### users have read-only access to the repository, while authenticated
> ### users have read and write access to the reposito
Kris Deugau wrote on Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:41:27 -0400:
> Philip Martin wrote:
> > Subversion 1.7 (but not 1.6) creates svnserv.conf with the following:
> >
> > ### The sample settings below are the defaults and specify that anonymous
> > ### users have read-only access to the repository, while
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Kris Deugau wrote on Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:41:27 -0400:
>> (TBH I'm not sure why it was changed, it's perfectly clear to *me*...)
>
> You don't say what's unclear about the new text.
I don't see much difference between them at all - obviously others did,
and felt that the
