On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> We should be very cautious about proposing an apparently "simple" special > case like that. A file has properties and > text content; a directory has properties and children; that's how it is in > Subversion. Saying that a user should be able > to read part of a directory (its properties) and not the other part (its > children) is breaking that relatively simple abstraction, > and breaking abstractions in that way makes complications for all other > software layers that try to build on top of the > foundation, not to mention for the users' mental models. At first hearing, > it doesn't sound like there could be any major > repercussions, but after a while I suspect we might regret it. I do not think the area here is as gray as you might. After all, today we basically force people to essentially do the same thing by adding a lot of rules to mimic it. [repos:/] * = r [repos:/project1] * = [repos:/project1/someFolder] * = rw [repos:/project2] * = [repos:/project3] * = The proposal would be to save the user from not needing to add these rules to get the same behavior. There is of course still some gray area in that today the user has to go out of the way to write these rules, so they are in control. But if they create the rules, it seems like our code already know how to handle them. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
