The other option is to use a private gist (gist.github.com), which is a clonable multi-file git repo. It's read-only for anyone you give the link to, but you can keep pushing changes to it.
The downside is that you can't just use the repo you're working on, you'd need to explicitly share just the files you care about. 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 >
_______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
