"Kirill A. Korinskiy" <catap@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Server can use any URI for token by rfc 4918 section 6.5 paragraph five
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Korinskiy <catap@xxxxxxxx>
Could you give a bit more high-level background information behind this
patch?
I can make a guess without knowing much about DAV that this might be...
The program flow of pushing over http is:
- call lock_remote() to issue a DAV_LOCK request to the server to lock
info/refs and branch refs being pushed into; handle_new_lock_ctx() is
used to parse its response to populate "struct remote_lock" that is
returned from lock_remote();
- send objects;
- call unlock_remote() to drop the lock.
The handle_new_lock_ctx() function assumed that the server will use a
lock token in opaquelocktoken URI scheme, which may have been an Ok
assumption under RFC 2518, but under RFC 4918 which obsoletes the older
standard it is not necessarily true.
This resulted in push failure (often resulted in "xxxxx" error message)
when talking to a server that does not use opaquelocktoken URI scheme.
But I shouldn't have to guess or write the commit log message for you.
Giving a bit higher level background is important for people who may have
seen the error message (so filling in the "xxxxx" blank in the above
hypothetical commit log message is *important*) to find your message and
try your commit to see if it fixes the issue for them.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
