Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
> On Fri 2004-12-17 at 01:27:11 +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>As a project administrator, I often put locks on files that I don't want
>>>people to edit, even if I'm not actively working on it. I want to lock
>>>it and leave it, knowing that it will be preserved in that state until
>>>I'm ready for it.
>>
>>That sounds like a bit of a crude way of implementing access control. You
>>are free to do that if it works for you, but I don't think that this
>>discussion should by influenced by a desire to facilitate that usage.
>
> I understand locking to be mainly for serializing access, while
> authorization is mainly for controlling access. Please correct me, if
> I am wrong.
>
> So while freezing a branch in preparation for and during rolling a
> release could be implemented via authorization (or pre-commit hook),
> locking it seems the easier choice to me.
[...]
> I don't mean, that any emphasis should be put on the that. I just
> wanted to point out that while this is a bit in-between, this was not
> about misusing locking to implement authorization.
OK, I accept that. It's not "a crude way of implementing access control".
It's just a use case for wanting locked files to remain locked by default.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 17 13:44:51 2004