Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 12:51, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>
>>How about introducing permissions that would only have an effect under
>>Unix? My subversion repository is private and I use Unix only.
>>
>>
>
>Is this feature so important that it's worth tossing portability? And
>permanently supporting new code complexity for only one OS?
>
>It's nice that you use Unix only. But that doesn't mean tossing away
>design principles for the project.
>
>This looks like a perfect opportunity for a 3rd-party tool... something
>similar to what the previous poster mentioned he's already doing: a
>unix-script that stores and recreates permissions via custom properties.
>
>
A feature like this doesn't have to toss portability, it just adds a
little more code, and in this case, only a little more to the clients.
The idea of storing this information in properties is excellent, and I
think it deserves to be part of the main code, not a wrapper script you
need to custom install everywhere.
I'm sure this can be figured out by people smarter than myself in these
areas, but if we had properties specific to each platform. These could
be specific to the platform as needed. Something like:
svn:unix-perms: 0665
svn:unix-symlink:
svn:windows-acl: "..."
There would be no way to convert between them, that would be the
caveat. You couldn't expect UNIX rwx bits to translate to Windows ACLs
at all, but it would be MUCH better than the current
least-common-denominator functionality. (Actually, it's already sorta
there in the form of the svn:executable property, as it only does
something on *nix)
I've always thought of "portability" as meaning "works on every system
and takes full advantage of each system's abilities". It seems most
people leave that 2nd part out. I really hate the idea that I can't use
svn to really help me on UNIX, just because Windows doesn't do ownership
the same way.
--
Brian Mathis
http://directedge.com/b/
Received on Fri Dec 12 22:36:01 2003