Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Ongoing Comparison Between Version Control Systems

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:44:55PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > "Repository Permissions"
> >
> > Arch can have exactly the same permissions system as subversion,
> > because it is also capable of using webdav. Alternatively, you can use
> > unix permissions and local files/sftp, or an ftpd and whatever that is
> > capable of.
> >
> 
> My problem (as I stated earlier) is if the organization of the repository
> gives way to this.

I can't think of any sane arrangement that would be problematic here.

Arch can do this _at least as well as svn_. I don't know how well that
is, because as noted below, I've never had a need to even try.

> > However, you generally _don't_, because you use multiple archives with
> > branches between them instead (so each archive has approximately one
> > person writing to it). This is a convention rather than a limitation.
> >
> 
> I understand. However, I do think this feature is useful (it has been
> utilized in the Subversion self-repository itself, and is actively used by
> many ClearCase users), and would like to query for its existence.

It's useful for svn because they can't have distributed branches. Arch
does have them, which makes fine-grained archive permissions rather
less important (you still *could* do things the complicated,
centralised way... but you don't *want* to).

[It's mildly entertaining just how many problems simply go away when
you can have distributed branches].

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

pgpCQwfPxq85L.pgp
Description: PGP signature