Opps, sorry, I sent too early. On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:17:47 +0200 Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Eduardo Morras <emorr...@yahoo.es> wrote: > > > Yes it is. There's a big difference between Project and Repository. > > There's the fossil project, only one, but there are lots of repositories > > and fossil project forks that aren't the main 'Fossil Project'. I don't > > want to restrict what you do with your repository or your project fork, I > > want to restrict what you can do to main Project. > > > > That's the problem: my clone of your project is a first-class copy of your > project. There is essentially no distinction. If you copy goes up in flames > me can drop in my copy, re-add the users, and we're done. So here's what > happens with user restrictions: > > - i clone your repo > - i edit some dir which you have restricted. > - i check it in locally (offline) > - Later i try to push to your repo and it fails. My repo is now in a state > where i can _never_ push my copy to yours ever again because pushing to > yours will fail as long as i have no access (on your side) for that file. I must insist here ;) There's a distinction, your repository is not the official Project repository, mine, the central one, yes. You can fork and create a new project and name it as you wish and change what you want. If you want to merge with the Only and Real True Project, your changes must be approved by the person that has the permission to do that, that's me. > > No, I sync with fossil main repository each week, but I don't have > > permission to push my changes. That's because my user (anonymous) don't > > have the role to do so. If I want to push my changes I must convince > > someone who has the correct role to do so. > > > > But for "partial access" ALL pushes from me to you will fail if i have > edited a file to which i cannot push. There is no "partial push" in fossil > - you can push everything or nothing. Fossil, as a piece of software, could > not possibly decide which parts of my commits are "safe" to push, and > Fossil _MUST_ fail if _any_ part of my push/sync fails because it has no > heuristic which can say, "oh, that was just that file under /noaccess/... > which you edited 3 weeks ago and is still not writable for you" (and if it > could decide that, then failing is still the proper response). The only > reasonable action Fossil can take there is to fail. How could it possibly > know which parts are "okay" and which not? How can i possibly ever recover > my repo to a sane state if you refuse to give me write access to changes i > have already made locally (but not cannot commit, leaving my repo in an > unclean/divergent state). If you don't have access to some files and you modified them, fossil shouldn't fail, fossil must fail the push/sync. You worked and touch things you shouldn't and must correct it. If you need a change in a file you can't touch, ask the user who owns them and convince him/her the changes are needed. If not, his/her work could fail and waste his/her time because someone modified the code. Out of fossil and scms, if you change the db schema without asking or noting the dba, the hell will be a pleasant location to hide ;) --- --- Eduardo Morras <emorr...@yahoo.es> _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
