I think there are some systems which layer over the top and provide more fine-grained access controls. Gitolite springs to mind. But I really don't know what I'm talking about, so probably it's a red herring.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Noon Silk <[email protected]> wrote: > Upon further review, you can probably disregard this. I think the > answer is really just quite straightforward. For read-only access, > dropbox or similar (ftp, whatever) is appropriate. > > For read/write, a new repository is appropriate. In that case I should > just convert the folder to be a new repo, make it a sub-repo of my own > thing, and control the access that way. Then the only change is that I > should somehow have group commit/push commands for this repository; > then so be it. > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Noon Silk <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> So I have a question that I don't think is too far off topic for this list. >> >> Let's say I have a private git repo at, for example, bitbucket.org. >> This is all well and good and I do work in it commiting various >> things. Then, let's say I decide I'd like to temporarily give >> read-access to someone else. I can give them access to the entire repo >> via bitbucket (and probably similarly via other services); however I >> want to only give access to a certain folder. At the moment I think >> the answer is "bad luck, it should be a different repo". So, I've kind >> of done this. But is that the best answer? Is there any way anyone can >> think of to have a sort of short-term share of a repo? For example, >> one incredibly straightforward idea is to do a symlink from the folder >> to a public (or whatever) dropbox folder, and share that. Any other >> ideas? >> >> I suppose if I had my own git server the answer would be pretty >> obvious - just create new repos and kind of share them like that >> (maybe even leaving the originals in the original repo and doing some >> offensive symlink stuff). But for some reason I'm not entirely >> comfortable with the idea of creating repos on this sort of arbitrary >> basis. Is that wrong? Should I be happy with it? (One of the reasons >> I'm not is that it really makes the business of committing changes in >> this super repository hard; I'd have to write some scripts to >> auto-commit all children, or share commit messages, or something ...) >> >> One aspect of the solution is that ideally it would be possible to get >> a copy of everything via something other than git (hence I suppose the >> dropbox plan is the best one); but I'd be okay if it were a web >> interface or something. Appreciate any thoughts. >> >> -- >> Noon Silk >> >> Fancy a quantum lunch? https://sites.google.com/site/quantumlunch/ >> >> "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy >> of being this signature." > > > > -- > Noon Silk > > Fancy a quantum lunch? https://sites.google.com/site/quantumlunch/ > > "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy > of being this signature." > _______________________________________________ > melbourne-pug mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug -- -------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Leeuwenburg http://myownhat.blogspot.com/ "Don't believe everything you think" _______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
