[ On Monday, February 21, 2000 at 09:39:31 (-0500), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: removing the need for "cvs add file" to contact the server....
>
> > Given the current design of CVS there can be *NO* reasonable argument
> > for creating empty directories in the repository and leaving them there.
>
> Yes there is. Let me lay it out again (and remember, you helped come up with
> this even though now you want it null and void):
> 1. A cvs admin has the responsibility of being the only person to create
> directories in the repo (ie add directories and import modules). Rationale: The
> cvs admin must be able to have fine-grained control over permissions within the
> repository. Since only the file/directory owner can change permissions on that
> file/directory, the cvs admin must own all directories in the repo. Since
> directories are owned by those that add the directories, only the cvs admin must
> be allowed to create directories.
> 2. After the cvs admin has created the empty directory, other users will
> checkout the empty directory, then add whatever files they wish.
You are using CVS as it stands incorrectly and as such your argument
about needing to create empty directories in the repository is invalid.
Please read the manual and follow the directions it gives in order to
achieve the available and possible forms of access control.
> No, I completely understand how CVS manages permissions (ie it doesn't). All
> CVS does is use the permissions afforded by the file system. Since I need
> finer-grained control over permissions than you do, you claim that this need is
> false. Greg, the world is a lot larger than your weird.com world. Version
> control (eg CVS) and access control (eg ACLs) are orthogonal issues. CVS
> shouldn't force me to have a root script running that'll change ownerships of
> directories in the repo.
Whether or not you need finer grained control over permissions is
irrelevant to this point. Just because your specific needs seem to
indicate to you that some extraordinary changes be made in the way CVS
deals with access authorisation doesn't mean that the result is suitable
for the general case and thus suitable for re-integration into a
commonly used version of CVS.
Indeed version control and access control are orthogonal, *except* where
they intersect. I have in fact separately outlined several ways that
you can do what you want without having to do things the way you seem to
think you have to do them. A repository maintenance program run as a
privileged user is only one of those alternatives. A proper risk
assessment and perhaps better definition of your access control
requirements might also simplify things to the point where excessively
paranoid schemes are not necessary and the documented scheme will be
more than adequate.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
