Not sure. Are you saying that a repository can never go faulty by any
user actions? (granted we implement all the security measures you
mention)
The other side of the issue is political I guess (perhaps a bigger
factor than the techincal). It'd be easier for me to say, here's your
repository, go do whatever you want, than to say, here's your project,
and any time you want to make changes to it (add users, permission,
etc.), let me know.
Other than that, would there be a techincal reason why a single
repository might be a better option?
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Levy [mailto:andy.levy@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:51 AM
To: Jiho Han
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Re: How many repositories question
On 11/13/06, Jiho Han <jhan@infinityinfo.com> wrote:
> Well, you guys are not making it any easier :)
>
> I'm leaning towards having multiple repositories just because it'd
> create boundaries for each client/projects. If the only advantage of
> having a single repository is being able to merge between projects,
> then I don't think that's a huge win over clean separation in this
case.
>
> Although I can see how things can be overwhelming with 100s and 100s
> of small repositories, if one pm/dev team messes up a repository, then
> only that team is affected.
Messes up the repository in what way?
Only give each pm/dev team access to the sections of the repository they
need access to, and definitely don't give them access to the filesystem
where the repository actually lives. Once these 2 things are locked
down, what level of "messing up a repository" are you concerned about?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 13 17:12:02 2006