On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > > > What if I don't have an openid? > > > > Everything uses OpenID now and bitbucket uses it too. I went over this with > > you last time. Your gmail, facebook, yahoo, etc. are all automatically > > OpenIDs. > > I sure don't want to use my facebook account to access work related stuff, > that is absurd. > > > > > petsc is another account like barryfsmith is an account? Who designed this > > monstrosity? > > > > Of course 'petsc' is another account. How else would it work? > > Bitbucket should have a concept of "accounts" (each of us has one of > these) and "repository trees" (which can be equally shared by one or more > accounts). To use accounts to hold a repository tree is moronic because it > makes unsymmetric the relationship between the owner of the account that owns > the repository tree and the other accounts that can do stuff with that > repository tree. So what other idiotic decisions did these morons make?
Actually I think all accounts are equivalent and symmetric [I can have repos in my account and share, you can have repos in yours and share]. I think Sean created a separate 'petsc' account - so that we just have nice urls similar to the current petsc urls.. bkbits.org/petsc/reponame Sure - there is no repository trees - like bkbits.org/balay/petsc/reponame Or perhaps you are saying eventhoug one has bkbits.org/balay/ [for 'balay' account] - I should be able to register 'petsc','foobar' as project names to obtain bkbits.org/petsc bkbits.org/foobar url - but that gets a bit conveluted.. satish > > Sorry but this bit of bad design needs to posted on petsc-dev so Jed and > Matt can provide some rationalization for the stupidity. > > Barry > > >
