Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [RFC] versioned policy -- introduction

[Zack Weinberg]

On 9/7/06, Bruce Stephens <address@hidden> wrote:
> "Justin Patrin" <address@hidden> writes:
> That would be the netsync way to do it, yes.  Alternatively, the
> server could permit these changes, and then you apply the trust
> decisions when doing "update", "merge", etc.  Just as monotone works
> now (with the get_revision_cert_trust hook, mostly, but also the
> testsuite one, I guess).
>
> Both seem doable.  I guess the testing on use way would more easily
> allow changing policy: you'd have a reasonably fixed database, and the
> various access decisions could change as the policy changed.

I just want to chime in with a scenario where you really want the
check to happen on netsync: a project may want to ensure that its
official server's database contains only data that they are sure they
have permission to distribute, even in un-blessed revisions.
Otherwise, a bunch of warez d00dz could perfectly well piggyback on
someone's project server -- they don't care that their illicit
revisions are not considered part of the project, they can still get
'em.  And I think the project would still be in legal trouble.

zw