On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:52:03 Ian Clarke wrote: >>> Are we sure having separate projects for "staging" and "official" in >>> github is the right way to organize this? ?I don't see any other >>> projects on github organized in this way. ?Shouldn't they be separate >>> branches or something, not entire separate projects? >> >> Security. Anyone with write access (i.e. just about anyone who asks for >> access, whether we trust them or not) can clobber the whole tree or rewrite >> history with a forced (non-fast-forward) update. > > Are you sure there is no way to limit access on a per-branch basis? > Have you asked on #github or #git on freenode?
There are no way to do this in github. All other git user user their own private branch, and seldom give out write access like we do. > This seems inelegant. This is different workflow. Most git project use the "pull" model -- the maintainer pull from other developer. see @http://github.com/blog/270-the-fork-queue for example on how others do this. > Ian. >
