Thus said "j. van den hoff" on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 09:31:28 +0200: > 1. in `orig.fossil' the (sole) `setup' user is me > (current_login_name), which is as it should be. (as an aside: the help > text does speak of `admin' user, but actually its the `setup' user > (and a `admin' user has different (somewhat lower) permissions) -- so > this might call for a change of the help text?)
Minor issue but should probably be clarified. > 2. but in `clone.fossil' the web interface tells me that there are two > `setup' users: current_login_name and JoeDoe > > question: should I expect this (I did not...)? I would have thought > that there will be a single one (JoeDoe). and that is also what I > intend to get... Either the text is wrong, or the behavior is wrong. One of them must be fixed. I believe it is not creating a new user that matches your login, but rather is preserving the user that exists in the source fossil, perhaps it is related to this comment I made: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg12524.html You are doing a file clone. Other types of cloning do not do this: $ fossil clone -A someone ssh://remote//tmp/test.fossil new.fossil ... project-id: 78f3c64bd97f33cb0a7606842ca83ddf25776819 admin-user: someone (password is "2c9149") $ fossil user -R new.fossil list anonymous Anon developer Dev nobody Nobody reader Reader someone > ... if I don't care that the locally used user names are becoming > known and the passwords are irrelevant/not valuable either: are there > any more points to consider, i.e. is there anything else in the > database which one should not distribute just so? Email addresses. Private branches in the repository. IP addresses. There is an option to scrub the fossil of sensitive info. fossil help scrub Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000000052034eb3 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
