Wilson, Ronald wrote:
>> The philosophy of DVCS (or least of Fossil) is that you don't "reject"
>> unsigned or mis-signed check-ins. You merely tag those check-ins as
>> such and make users aware of their questionable status.
>>
>> Fossil strives to provide an audit trail, not policy enforcement.
>>
>> D. Richard Hipp
>> d...@hwaci.com
>
> Got it.
>
> I'm just not sure how that really works out in practice. If you allow
> remote users to perform checkins, how do you sort it out if someone
> makes a mess?
How about having a 'incoming' repository in your work-flow. Checkins to this
repo are watched, in case of a mess or policy violations the trouble artifacts
are shunned. Anything cleared is pushed to the main repo.
The main repo thus never sees a mess or other bad checkins.
> Maybe I just don't understand tagging. I would want to
> be able to move untrusted checkins to another branch and keep my main
> line clean. Does tagging do that? Is a pgp signature essentially a
> form of tag? I need to play with it some. So far my use case for
> fossil is only single-user with a canonical remote repo and only
> accidental forking. I've had no use for tags yet.
--
Sincerely,
Andreas Kupries <andr...@activestate.com>
Developer @ <http://www.activestate.com/>
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
