Having fine-grained access control, a la Apache, is also necessary for us.
We have even had customers ask to apply permission control via regexes -
different right to *foo.bar and *bing.baz, even if they're in the same
directory. Crazy, sure; but they did have a good reason for it, believe
it or not. Again, we can just let Apache handle this for us by going
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Another way to describe this scenario is that you have a number of distinct
> products that end up checked out into a common source code tree structure.
> In DCMS this can be handled by putting the more sensitive stuff in a
> separate project and controlling access to that project. When checked out,
> the various projects can share the same source tree structure.
> I think I am arguing that if you have differentiated on access rights then
> by definition you don't have one project anymore, and trying to squeeze the
> whole into one project doesn't seem to fit very well.
> However, I'm still pondering what you say. It's definitely thought
> > Here at MIT we have a source tree which
> > is composed almost entirely of free software, but has a few
> > directories containing proprietary stuff like AFS binaries. We'd very
> > much like to make the free portions of the tree readable to anyone,
> > but if we had to have the same permissions on all parts of a given
> > branch, we'd have to restrict the whole repository and then make
> > snapshots of the public parts available or some other kludge.
collab.net | open source | do what's right | now hiring smart people
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:06 2006