On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:50 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Tony Butt wrote on Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 15:07:55 +1100: > > Hi all, > > > > We have recently upgraded our subversion servers from 1.6.17 to 1.7.1, > > and as I usually do when making the 'semi-major' upgrade, dumped and > > reloaded the repository. > > > > 1.6 and 1.7 use the same backend format. dump/load gains nothing. And > the release notes say that... Yes, I found that out the day after I went throught the dunp/load process. The back end format may be the same, but the file permissions are not, which has had a flow-on effect to our current practices. > > > Here I noticed 2 things: > > 1) the individual revs and revprops files are now read-only, previously > > they were read/write for group and owner. > > 2) the svn+ssh committed files were owned by the committing user (myself > > in the test case) > > > > I tried to edit the log message of a commit made with svn+ssh://, using > > http:// access, and failed. Now the strange thing, after changing a > > different commit message for a test (using http:// access only, > > successsfully), drafting this email, and re-checking the revprops file > > in question, it was now owned by www-data - the apache user. > > > > We make rev files read only intentionally. I don't remember offhand > how revprop files would be affected, but in any case those are never > changed either --- we only ever rename(2) new versions on top of old > ones. > > And, anyway, I really don't understand your bottom line. Are you saying > the new behaviour is non backwards compatible? That it should be > changed? Or just that it's surprising? The new behaviour is slightly different, and slightly incompatible in our corner case. It was more surprising than anything else, and I wanted to check that I didn't need to tweak the repository config in some way to allow for this - possibly some subtlety with umasks that I was not aware of. > > > In short, this is unexpected behaviour for me, but not exactly broken. > > > > Tony Butt > > CEA Technologies > > Canberra > > Next time can you try to be more concise, rather than bury your question > somewhere in the middle. Thanks. OK - Repository behaviour is slightly different to 1.6.17, as detailed (verbosely) above. Asking for advice as to whether this is a defect, or configuration error. This may bite anyone that uses multiple access methods and revprop edits. Humour intended too. :-)
Thanks, Tony Butt CEA Technologies Canberra
