On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:56 AM, j. van den hoff <[email protected]> wrote: > I would find it far more intuitive if _after_ a `clone' of the above sort > (password query for `myname' and all) the corresponding local user would > be created automagically and also be set to the default user so that I'm
Nothing to do with computers is "intuitive". At best, it's familiar because it acts like something else you had to learn to use. Personally, I'd be *very* surprised if I cloned a repo and it copied *any* password information, no matter what auth* was done during the clone. That's just a huge security faux pas. Creating users without passwords is even worse. > which again 99.9% of the time should be what the user wants anyway (and might > be really surprised to not have happened autmatically). I disagree. It might be what the user wants to happen 99% of the time for local clones, but I'd say that the current default (current login name) does that 99% of the time as well, without opening up the possibility of unknowingly handing someone a clone that includes your password. For remote clones - things change. I almost never want the same password on the two ends (again, a security faux pas) and don't really care whether or not the username is the same. Given that it takes one command to create a user & password vs. one command to set the password, automatically creating the same username with a new password is at best a meh. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
