Mark Reibert wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 17:27 -0700, Roy Franz wrote:
>> Also, while I am one of the people hoping for improved 'first-class'
>> treatment of tags/branches in subversion, I don't see that this
>
> +1, if we are voting!
>
> Like you, I admire the simplicity and elegance of a tag/branch being
> just a copy. On the other hand, the fact that these operations are
> special only by convention makes administering and controlling them
> difficult. For example, in days gone by under CVS we allowed anyone to
> place a "private" tag on objects, whereas only repository admins could
> create "official" tags (e.g., for a release). Private tags began with
> "p_<user_initials>". Official tags were automatically inserted into
> Bugzilla as versions of the associated product.
>
> This was extremely easy to setup and enforce with a trigger script under
> CVS, since tagging is a sentient operation. With Subversion, as far as I
> can tell this requires a pre-commit hook that inspects the target of the
> copy and needs to use a set of heuristics to figure out the user's
> intent. Moreover, it seems the user could easily subvert the attempted
> control by simply choosing a location or name that is not part of the
> heuristics.
>
> Just my $0.02 worth ...
What about pre-commit script just like the following pseudo-code?
if commit_path matches /trunk/.* or commit_path matches /branches/.*:
return Access_allowed
if commit_path matches /tags/.*:
if commit_path matches /tags/official/\w* and user == admin:
return Access_allowed
if commit_path matches /tags/private/<user>/\w*:
return Access_allowed
return Access_denied
Cheers,
Folker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 7 16:09:33 2007