[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited
From: |
Robert Anderson |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited |
Date: |
17 Nov 2003 15:09:28 -0800 |
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 15:09, Tom Lord wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: "Robert Anderson" <address@hidden>
>
> > I am working in an NFS environment where all access to an archive
> > is "local."
>
> [....]
>
>
> > The problem is of course that due to a non-negotiable,
> > shop-mandated umask, the ++revision-lock directory is not group
> > writable, and each person who commits locks out all the others
> > until they make it so. This is problematic both functionally and
> > in the "why are you giving us this crap tool which chokes on the
> > most basic of operations" depts.
>
> > So I'm looking for a solution.
>
> Why don't you use some non-local transport for that archive, then?
Because I want the local performance (but it's a negotiable point).
However, I don't think it solves the problem, does it? The only
transport available to me is sftp, and I wouldn't know how to solve the
problem there, either.
> You could spend an evening just setting up a server.
Unfortunately, I can't. This code doesn't go outside the local network
and I don't have the authority or means to set up a server on it.
> Alternatively, looking (at least briefly) back at the Xouvert thread,
> it seems we overlooked a sane solution at that time (blush. But then
> that's why I proposed the "make a new savannah account" solution after
> all - to buy time to think):
>
> While I would be against the "copy permissions" hack and against a
> "tla umask" command, I would not be against support for archive
> URLs of the forms (suitably adjusted if I've violated uri syntax):
>
>
> file%umask=XXX://path/to/your/archive
>
> sftp%umask=XXX:/address@hidden/path/to/your/archive
>
> sftp:/%umask=XXX,address@hidden/path/to/your/archive
>
> etc.
That's how you'd register the archive, I presume?
Bob
- [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Anderson, 2003/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Dustin Sallings, 2003/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited,
Robert Anderson <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, zander, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robin Farine, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23