On Monday 01 August 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/1/11 8:30 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
Are you really serious?
No,
Thanks, that confirms it.
Sorry, but this discussion is pointless.
Uli
**
Domino Laser
Hi,
Von: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
It is written in SVN book that repository that uses FSFS should work
on read-only media.
Is it something that was broken recently?
- see Usable from a read-only mount row in the table in the middle
of
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Bert stsp: (re: users@) read only operations on a fsfs repository
don't
obtain a lock (and don't need write access). Only commit and revprop
changes should need write access. (I don't know what is required for
bdb).
We don't
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:22:23 +0200:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Bert stsp: (re: users@) read only operations on a fsfs repository
don't
obtain a lock (and don't need write access). Only commit and revprop
changes should need
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 13:25:18 +0300:
Though, there is a standing backport for svn_fs_verify() which would
break that... I'll follow up on dev@.
Actually, a quick test tells me that it's possible to read an SQLite
database that lives on a read-only mount.
Naturally, that
On Saturday 30 July 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
From a security perspective it is a bad idea to tell a network client that
is doing something you have explicitly denied any of the details of how
the system is configured to prevent it. Working correctly is usually a
yes or no question and this
On 8/1/11 2:47 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
On Saturday 30 July 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
From a security perspective it is a bad idea to tell a network client that
is doing something you have explicitly denied any of the details of how
the system is configured to prevent it. Working correctly
On Monday 01 August 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/1/11 2:47 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
On Saturday 30 July 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
From a security perspective it is a bad idea to tell a network client
that is doing something you have explicitly denied any of the details
of how the system
Hi,
Von: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Can subversion cope with repositories and working-copies on
read-only
media?
Maybe some Live-Demo CD bringing an example SVN repository?
No.
So subversion needs write
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi,
Von: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Can subversion cope with repositories and working-copies on
read-only
media?
Maybe some Live-Demo CD
2011/8/1 Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi,
Von: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Can subversion cope with repositories and working-copies on
read-only
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:16:53PM +0400, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2011/8/1 Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi,
Von: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
In my opinion, as a network administrator, I don't want to show to my end
users why the user shouldn't commit anything in the repository. Because as
Les Mikesell said, the message could show someway to workaround and allow
the user to commit something without permission. I think the current
On 30 Jul 2011, at 20:10, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/30/11 1:14 PM, Jeremy Pereira wrote:
On 30 Jul 2011, at 18:17, Les Mikesell wrote:
'403 forbidden' makes reasonable sense for a client-side message to someone
who shouldn't know internal details anyway.
Seriously? You think an
On 31 Jul 2011, at 17:46, Rafael Heise wrote:
In my opinion, as a network administrator, I don't want to show to my end
users why the user shouldn't commit anything in the repository.
In my opinion as a Subversion user, that sucks. I think I'll switch to
Mercurial. Oh, no wait, the
On 7/31/11 3:24 PM, Jeremy Pereira wrote:
Telling somebody that they only have read access to a repository is not giving them a hint about
how to work around it. 403 forbidden is not telling somebody that they only have read
access to a repository (or part of a repository). It's telling
Ok. I'll try to explain how HTTP protocols works.
There are some protocols to make the internet work properly, and we call it
HTTP PROTOCOL. So, when you are working with HTTP protocol you HAVE TO obey
this protocols, so ANY client can read it and the client will understant it.
As you can read on
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Rafael Heise rmhe...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok. I'll try to explain how HTTP protocols works.
There are some protocols to make the internet work properly, and we call it
HTTP PROTOCOL. So, when you are working with HTTP protocol you HAVE TO obey
this protocols, so
for
'/svn/Mummy/!svn/act/991016fc-bbae-4269-a468-b8e3d9bce7b5'
Late that night, it finally hit to me: I had read access to the
repository, but not write access. My procedure for creating a repository
did not grant write access to the creator.
That is close to the worst error message I
.
That is close to the worst error message I have ever seen.
then you've never seen a problem of type 2094:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL2blQ2PlU4
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa
access to the creator.
That is close to the worst error message I have ever seen.
Yeah, that's one is bad.
I gave a talk about this topic on svnday in May this year:
http://www.elegosoft.com/files/svn-day-berlin-2011_sperling_subversion-error-messages-demystified.pdf
for creating a
repository did not grant write access to the creator.
That is close to the worst error message I have ever seen.
Yeah, that's one is bad.
I gave a talk about this topic on svnday in May this year:
http://www.elegosoft.com/files/svn-day-berlin-2011_sperling_subversion-error-messages
it.
That is close to the worst error message I have ever seen.
You haven't been doing complicated things with a computer long, I take it. There
are plenty of worse messages on the order of can't happen'.
'403 forbidden' makes reasonable sense for a client-side message to someone who
shouldn't
On 30 Jul 2011, at 18:17, Les Mikesell wrote:
'403 forbidden' makes reasonable sense for a client-side message to someone
who shouldn't know internal details anyway.
Seriously? You think an HTTP response code (which *is* an internal detail) is
an acceptable error message. You think it
On 7/30/11 1:14 PM, Jeremy Pereira wrote:
On 30 Jul 2011, at 18:17, Les Mikesell wrote:
'403 forbidden' makes reasonable sense for a client-side message to someone who
shouldn't know internal details anyway.
Seriously? You think an HTTP response code (which *is* an internal detail) is
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/30/11 1:14 PM, Jeremy Pereira wrote:
On 30 Jul 2011, at 18:17, Les Mikesell wrote:
'403 forbidden' makes reasonable sense for a client-side message to
someone who shouldn't know internal details anyway.
26 matches
Mail list logo
