On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Satish Balay wrote: > 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].
For a specific repository it is not symmetric, either you or I created it and it lives in our directory root, not the other persons. > > 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.. Yes. Not convoluted at all. In fact the right way to organize it. The currently model cannot be symmetric. > > 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 >> >> >> >
