Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Yes, but you wouldn't be able to /change/ and ACL on an existing
> revision. You could only replace ACLs on the tip by checking in a new
> revision. Oh, wow; my latest idea with ACLs in directory entries has the
> same problem, except that you'd only have to duplicate the tree, not the
> files. ...
> The other problem is that you'd have to actually read the node's
> properties before you could find out whether you're allowed to read the
> node's properties, which is a bit inconsistent. :-)
> So in short, ACLs have to be non-historic properties of node revisions.
> Hmm. Let me think about this a bit. Got to wrap my head a bit more
> tightly around the idea that our filesystem is unlike any other
> filesystem I've ever seen, versionable or not.
I think I agree with your conclusions, hmmm. Probably we'll all have
to ponder this a bit more, resume discussion after M2 (been thinking
maybe a good goal for M3 would be to add authentication/authorization
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006