If that information ( Lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read) was in the svnserv.conf file, it would have saved me a few hours of troubleshooting.

Thanks,

Bill

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
Bill Cebula wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 18:30:23 -0500:
> Phillip,
>
> Thanks for the reply.  If the line anon-access = read is commented out,
> can't that be interpreted as anon-access = none on startup of the server?
>

No, lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read.
(and that can't be changed for compatibility reasons)

Daniel

> It seems like a 1 line conditional statement is all that is needed to fix
> this particular issue.  I realize it is related to a larger bug.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Philip Martin
> <philip.martin@wandisco.com>wrote:
>
> > Bill Cebula <bill.cebula@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > I would expect the same behavior whether the* anon-access* line is
> > > commented or whether it is specified as *none*.  However, if the
> > > anon-access line is commented, you get the error even though you the*
> > > authz* specifies read/write privileges for
> > > the entire repository.
> >
> > This is a known bug.  The svn:// protocol chooses either anonymous or
> > authenticated access right at the start of the connection and has no way
> > to upgrade later.
> >
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2712
> >
> > --
> > Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
> > http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
> >