Hm, that seems like pretty unusual use-case. Admins are the ones who
typically manage authz policy files, not arbitrary groups of users.
I guess I'm skeptical that there's really a problem to solve here.
In one corner, the SVNParentPath feature allows a group of
repositories to share a single configuration: authentication,
authorization, and so on. In the other corner, SVNPath allows
individual repositories to be individually configured. What you're
proposing is a new feature that starts to blur the lines between the
two existing features. The minor convenience you'd get doesn't seem
worth the extra code (and UI) complexity that would be added to
subversion.
Maybe others feel differently.
On 11/28/05, Carlos Alberto Costa Beppler <beppler@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because different people will have access to modify the policy and I
> can not give them rights to modify only parts of the file.
>
> On 11/28/05, Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > On 11/28/05, Carlos Alberto Costa Beppler <beppler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1 for a new feature where I can specify that the AuthzSVNAccessFile
> > > is a relative path to the repository repository location (using the
> > > conf directory as base by example).
> > >
> > > This can be very useful when using SVNParentPath and delegating the
> > > administration of the access control.
> > >
> > > To not break the compability with existing configuration this could be
> > > enabled by adding a new command to mod_authz_svn like
> > > "AuthzSVNRelativePath" or something like this.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand, why do you want separate authz-policy files for
> > separate repositories, when you can already control access to *all* of
> > them with a single policy file?
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 29 02:55:55 2005