> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:37:41AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
>>...
>> The case where apache isn't involved. We need a way to let the repos
>> handle if a user X is allowed Y on path Z. The berkeley argument won't
>> hold, since if we get around to implementing the sql backend, writing
>> to the repos isn't so easy as it is now with berkeley db. This can
>> be done through hooks. The read/write sentinels seems a pretty
>> efficient solution.
>
> While true... we have a long time to worry about that. In the meantime,
> having to deal with sentinels can be a distraction from what is needed for
> 1.0. When different backends arrive, then we can examine other mechanisms
> for authorization (which may include introducing a sentinels-like system).
>
>> Then again, discussion is always ok :)
>
> IMO, not always. It can be awfully distracting sometimes. Personally, I'd
> rather spend time on 1.0 than discussing post-1.0 items.
'Always' was a bit of a poorly choosen word. I should have left it out.
What I meant was that discussion about a different solution for the authz
problem would probably be a good thing, once the time is there to implement
it. For now, lets please get to M3 first :) [I'll try to shut up for a
little while now].
> OTOH, I don't approve of censoring or hard rules about mailing
> list content.
> So that puts me in a quandary :-)
:)
> Cheers,
> -g
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:37 2006