Re: Rejecting commits to a 1.5 server from clients < 1.5

Jack Repenning wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:41 PM, kmradke@rockwellcollins.com
> <mailto:kmradke@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Micah Elliott <mde@micahelliott.com <mailto:mde@micahelliott.com>>
>> wrote on 10/23/2007 10:59:50 AM:
>>
>> > On 2007-10-23 Blair Zajac wrote:
>> >
>> > > As somebody who runs an svn server for open source code and one
>> > > for internal corporate use, I want to ensure that all svn
>> > > clients that commit send merge info to the server and I don't
>> > > want to loose this information. So I want to require that all
>> > > clients that commit are at least Subversion 1.5 or later.
>> > ...
>> > This will definitely a useful requirement for me (now that you
>> > thought of it :-). I'm also in a corporate setting with 100+
>> > committers. We're waiting to do our CVS conversion until 1.5
>> > since we'd hate to be without merge tracking.
>>
>> I'll do anything I can to stop our 1400+ users from shooting
>> themselves in the foot. (Because they hit my feet too!)
>
> This is interesting. I'm not raising an objection here, just exploring:
> if you have so strong a need to protect your users, don't you already
> have some other, more general means in place? Standard installations,
> "scorched-earth sysadmin," that sort of thing?

That works only if all people accessing the repository are in the same
windows domain. But a lot of companies have hired contractors which work
from remote places, and there it's not possible to have such policies
enforced.

Also don't forget that a lot of companies have much less or even no
restrictions for developers because in place: most dev tools need Admin
rights to work properly (it's a shame, but it's true), which means those
restrictions wouldn't work anyway.

I brought this issue up before (in the thread "[PATCH] Re: log/bmale -g
and old servers") because we had such requests before (even before there
was a *real* reason): people even wanted to block specific svn clients
because they were found unstable when the company tested them.

 From past discussions on the TSVN list, I know that missing such a
feature would be a big "No, No!" for many companies, which means they
rather won't update their servers than to have to deal with the possible
mess they could get into.

Stefan

-- 
        ___
   oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
  (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
    \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
    /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org