On 11/29/05, Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:
> Hm, that seems like pretty unusual use-case. Admins are the ones who
> typically manage authz policy files, not arbitrary groups of users.
You aren't right.In my company lead developers manage authz policy
files for their repositories. Admins became crazy if they mange authz
files for 200+ developers :)
> 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
>
>
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on Tue Nov 29 09:02:11 2005