> -----Original Message----- > From: ullrich.j...@elektrobit.com > [mailto:ullrich.j...@elektrobit.com] > Sent: 25 March 2011 10:32 > To: subversion-20...@ryandesign.com > Cc: users@subversion.apache.org > Subject: RE: Unexpected behaviour with SVNPath/SVNParentPath mixture > > Hi Ryan, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ryan Schmidt [mailto:subversion-20...@ryandesign.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 2:25 AM > > To: Jans Ullrich > > Cc: users@subversion.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Unexpected behaviour with SVNPath/SVNParentPath mixture > > > > You will either want a single Location block containing an > > SVNParentPath directive, or multiple Location blocks each with > > an SVNPath directive. Not both. > > I noticed that. ;-) > > The question is, why not? According to the Apache docs, it > should work, so it looks like a problem in subversion. Can > this be considered a bug? Should I file an issue?
...because when you use the SVNParentPath directive, apache has no further involvement in any "child" paths, all paths that start with the parent root are passed to the DAV handler... You can get round this by specifiying separate handlers for the separate paths using multiple SVNPath blocks but again, anything below those paths is handled by DAV and not apache. This is different from nesting access restrictions to artifacts that are all handled by apache (i.e. uri <Location>s or local <Directory>s so those docs you mention do not apply in this scenario. > We'd like to provide our users with the ability to create > repositories themselves, then possibly promote select > repositories to a different permission set. Restricting > ourselves to only using SVNPath would be inconvenient... ;-) You could consider using one (set of) parent path(s) for restricted repos and another (set) for less restricted ones? ~ mark c
