Re: Authorization..

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Emre Uslu <emreu_at_ayesas.com> wrote:
> Thanks Holger.
>
> Actually i do not keep the file after review. The only difference i saw
> in your flow is reviewers may commit the file to the branch instead they
> give their comments via mail. I thought to delete the file if it is
> rejected but i do not thought enough about the comments.
>
> But if the reviewers may be out of the group they may not be commit the
> file to the branch as the only committers are the members of the group.
> So either i should extend the group with the reviewers or i should
> extend the right of tag folder as writeable for reviewers. Both of that
> is confusing..
>
> Anyway your flow about reviewers may be useful. Thank you...
>
> EMRE USLU

1. The author commits to trunk as many interrim versions as it takes
to get ready for review.

If the reviewer has access to Subversion then the do the following

  2. Once the document is ready the author passes the revision number
and document path to the reviewer and the reviewer checks it out.

  3. If the reviewer approves the document the reviewer tags that
document revision under tags/approved.

If the reviewer does not have access to Subversion.

  2. Once the document is ready the author tags the reviewable
revision under tags/ready_for_review and passes it to the reviewer.

  3. If the reviewer approves the document the previously tagged
document revision is tagged under tags/approved.

Since the reviewer doesn't commit the approved tag in the second case,
the committer details aren't useful. The 'waiting for review' tag
helps confirm that, at least, the revision tagged as approved entered
the review process - without a paper-trail outside of Subversion
though you can't close that loop. Allowing the reviewers access to
tagging allows you to close that loop with the committer identity
being a valid reviewer.

Unless the authoring process is very short I wouldn't be trying to
encourage keeping content out of trunk prior to review - the VCS is
the right place to record milestones in the authoring process and to
provide some protection from data-loss (unless you backup all of the
authoring working-copies).

Of course this is only one of many work-flows that might work for you.
 I'm sure that with planning you can arrive at one that fits,
Subversion is certainly flexible enough for most - another might be
for the reviewer to digitally sign the approved version and pass the
signature back to the Subversion committer to be added as a
'review:signature' property on the tag - though this means doing a
working-copy tag rather than URL-URL which is somewhat less obvious -
non-recursive checkout, URL-WC copies etc.

--
Talden
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org