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 makes sense? Why is 403 forbidden? Oh, right, that's just a code. Ok what is forbidden? Is it me? the repository? writing to the repository? writing to a particular file? Why is it forbidden? Is it because it is Tuesday? WHY???!!!! It's a useless error message. It's even pretty useless to the average person when they are trying to use a browser to access a URL. > Is something better in the apache error log where the sysadmin who set it up > wrong should be looking? Except that the administrator might not have set up the repository wrong. He might have made it deliberately read only. Users should not have to trawl Apache logs to find out that they are not allowed to commit to a repository. > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikes...@gmail.com >
