Re[2]: ACLs: Full support in file system after 1.0? But wat about tags?

From: Lev Serebryakov <lev_at_serebryakov.spb.ru>
Date: 2003-10-28 09:12:37 CET

Hello, Branko!
Tuesday, October 28, 2003, 1:15:30 AM, you wrote:

BC> Why do you need a read-only bit *in addition* if you can get the same
BC> behaviour with ACLs?
Because `read-only bit' we need before ACLs. ACLs could wait AFTER
1.0 and `read-only' (for tags) should be pre-1.0 feature, _IMHO_

Lev Serebryakov

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 28 09:05:37 2003

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Christopher Baus: "here's a fun one..."
Previous message: Ben Collins-Sussman: "Re: configure error - looking for db, db4"
In reply to: Branko Čibej: "Re: ACLs: Full support in file system after 1.0? But wat about tags?"
Next in thread: kfogel_at_collab.net: "Re: ACLs: Full support in file system after 1.0? But wat about tags?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]