Re: assert triggered in update_editor.c

2011-08-25 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 18:02:10 +0200: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 03:12:04PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > > >> In file > > >>  'D:\Development\S

Re: assert triggered in update_editor.c

2011-08-25 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 03:12:04PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > >> In file > >>  'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7-beta2\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\up

403 forbidden when copying path with no permissions

2011-08-25 Thread Chris Evans
I'm having issues doing an svn copy on the trunk of my project because I don't have read permissions to a directory further down the tree. My example authz: [test:/] myuser=rw [test:/proj1/trunk/dir1/dir1.2] myuser= The /proj1/trunk/dir1/dir1.2 was deleted a couple of revisions ago, so th

Re: RE: Proxy authentication with Negotiate uses wrong host

2011-08-25 Thread 1983-01-06
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 07:42 -0400, 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: > > Are you refering to sole Kerberos or are you just concerned about > > transport encryption? Your statement somewhat irritates me. > > Given that the HTTP traffic cannot be securely wrapped into the GSS > > content and nor the SASL Q

Re: assert triggered in update_editor.c

2011-08-25 Thread Erik Faye-Lund
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 03:12:04PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: >> In file >>  'D:\Development\SVN\Releases\TortoiseSVN-1.7-beta2\ext\subversion\subversion\libsvn_wc\update_editor.c' >>  line 1582: assertion failed (action == svn_wc_conflic

Re: RE: Proxy authentication with Negotiate uses wrong host

2011-08-25 Thread Greg Hudson
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 07:42 -0400, 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote: > Are you refering to sole Kerberos or are you just concerned about > transport encryption? Your statement somewhat irritates me. > Given that the HTTP traffic cannot be securely wrapped into the GSS > content and nor the SASL QOP can be