Frank Gruman wrote:
> Steven Simpson wrote:
>> <snip>
>> No, I think you were right, in the context that was snipped: "Most
>> severe restrictions should apply" (Jeb). In that case, whoever you are,
>> both lines apply, and the most severe restriction is to take away 'w',
>> whether you're in @developers or not.
>>
>>
> I disagree with that. What you just said completely removes the
> ability to set a repository as world readable and group/individual
> writable.
Yes, I agree. I'm not advocating Jeb's suggestion, merely pointing out
that someone else, who also thought it was bad, had interpreted it
correctly, after being told otherwise. Here's a summary of how this
particular branch of the argument developed (as I understand it, of course):
* Lieven Govaerts said that svn stops as soon as it finds sufficient
permissions within the directory entry.
* Jeb then said that svn's behaviour was unconventional, and
suggested that the rule should be "most severe restrictions should
apply". (I don't think he was saying how svn currently works.)
* Greg Thomas said that Jeb's suggested behaviour would prevent a
certain useful configuration.
* Lieven told Greg that the configuration was still possible (but I
think that Lieven hadn't realised that Greg was talking about the
suggested behaviour, or perhaps that the suggested and actual
behaviours were different - correct?).
* Greg seemed to agree that he'd made a mistake, and that Lieven's
interpretation was correct.
* I assured Greg that his original assessment was correct - the
suggested behaviour would prevent a useful configuration.
Cheers,
Steven
--
ss at comp dot lancs dot ac dot uk |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 21 15:24:52 2006