Bill Cebula wrote on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 18:30:23 -0500:
> Phillip,No, lack of explicit anon-access is interpreted as anon-access=read.
> 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?
(and that can't be changed for compatibility reasons)
> 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.
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Philip Martin
> > Bill Cebula <email@example.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