"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <email@example.com> writes:
> You have said this several times in response to various notes, and in my
> experience it is simply wrong. There are many things that can be fixed
> later. Issues of naming and access control, in my experience, are not among
> them. When (if ever) these things get implemented is your choice to make,
> but I urge you not to design your way into a corner (as CVS did) by failing
> to plan ahead.
The only respect in which CVS designed itself into a corner is in its
repository structure. As far as authentication goes, there's nothing
stopping people from adding more sophisticated authentication and
access-control (public-key, challenge-response, whatever).
Architecturally, there are no barriers to this in CVS.
The fact that people haven't bothered to do so suggests that it's not
as important as we're often led to believe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Subversion shouldn't support
fancy auth and acl. But one has to make a judgement call about
whether the current design prevents these things from being added
later, and from everything I can see it does not prevent that.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:05 2006