Re: Replay, Authz, and 1.4

Garrett Rooney wrote:
> [/]
> * = rw
>
> [/foo]
> * = r
>
> Now I need something like:
>
> [/]
> * = rwc
>
> [/foo]
> * = rc
>
> (assume c is our new 'reCursive' permission)

Just some thoughts that shot to mind when I was reading the messages:

1. Why use a letter for something like indicating 'recursive' access?
The way I see it we use letters for different types (levels?) of access.
- Read only (r) (btw: this is essentially saying you're allowed to
checkout, so we shouldn't need a new letter for that)
- Write (w)
- Replay
- Branching
- Merging
- etc.

For every one of these levels we could apply this recursively if we
needed to, so I see 'recursive' more as a modifier.

I think it would be obvious if we used a symbol for the recursive
attribute instead of a letter, better leave these for the different
levels of access.

2. If we have 'r' for recursive read access and 'a' for just read
access, we have to have 2 letters for every level of access, don't we?
('a' is probably from another post)

3. If you don't want to break the current authz style, you could use a
modifier to prevent recursion instead of one to activate recursion.
And I think it's more common to recursively add permission than
non-recursively so implicit recursion wouldn't be bad, would it?

Danny

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 4 20:41:22 2006