Ulf Ochsenfahrt schrieb: > Second, it would lead to (potentially) lower efficiency. If the user has > new revisions which are children of revisions that he does not > officially has read-access to, then he has to also transmit the parent > revisions, even though these may already be present in the other > database. I do not expect that this would happen often. One could even > argue that this can only happen when the access rights are incorrectly > configured. After all, how can a user know of a revision that he doesn't > have read-access to?
Hrm... what if the netsync server would "notify" the user of all revisions he knows of, but - in the same breathe - tells the client to which he/she has access to? Then the client would still only have to transmit those revisions which are unknown to the server. Speaking of netsync permission changes, if anyone goes for that, I'd also propose to implement something like a remote `mtn ls branches`. One could also do that as an automate command and return the read/write permissions for the currently used key as well in basic_io, so it would be instantly useful for other tools as well. Thomas. -- ICQ: 85945241 | SIP: 1-747-027-0392 | http://www.thomaskeller.biz > Guitone, a frontend for monotone: http://guitone.thomaskeller.biz > Music lyrics and more: http://musicmademe.com _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
