Thus said Paulus Tuerah on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 06:12:31 -0700: > I'm confused, I clone with "user_b" and push with "user_b", how can > the remote repository use "user_a" as the committer?
The user that is used to do the sync operation may or may not be the same user that made the commit in the locally opened clone of the repository. You can control who your local Fossil user is using the ``fossil user default'' command. > My local computer even don't set the password for "user_a" (I clone > and push only with "user_b"), so the remote repository should not > allow "user_a" to commit from my local computer. You did not communicate with the resmote user as ``user_a'' but instead communicated with the remote repository using ``user_b''. Also, it is assumed that anyone with physical access can modify the file, the commit user can be any user you want it to be. Currently fossil does not password protect the fossil from local modifications by users who have permissions to write to the file. > And the result: the one that commit is "USER_Z", but my remote > repository even don't have "USER_Z". But the information is not lost. Login as an admin user to the remote repository and then look at the checkin: http://remote-computer/info/[sha1uuid] You'll see that the name of the user that committed it was USER_Z, but the user who synced it to the repository was user_b. The User comes from the U card in the artifact for that checkin: http://remote-computer/artifact/[sha1uuid] > Is this bugs or intended? Intended. What version of Fossil do you have on your client? Run ``fossil version'' to get the full version. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40000000535a7689 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
