Re: Milestone 2: authentication and authorization

Jim Blandy wrote:

> I don't think this works. If I have /main/foo.c referring to 3.14,
> and then I make a "branch" by copying /main to /jimb-branch, then
> /jimb-branch/foo.c still refers to 3.14. If ACL's are keyed by node
> revision number, I can't put a different ACL on /jimb-branch/foo.c
> than /main/foo.c, because they're identical. In fact, /jimb-branch
> and /main are the same node revision, too, until I make my first
> change to /jimb-branch.
>
> It's very important to realize that node revision numbers are *not*
> inode numbers.

Ouch. Of course.

O.K., that leaves two alternatives:

a) Treat an ACL change as a modification, and create a new revision at
that time. This probably won't work, though, because ACL changes would
become expensive.

b) Put the ACLs in the directory entries, beside the entry names. This
would bring us close to how an actual filesystem behaves.

I'd go for b). Opinions?

-- 
Brane �ibej
   home:  <brane_at_xbc.nu>             http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
    work:   <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si>   http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>            http://www.acm.org/