You might want to do this in the form of requiring signed-off-by
lines. That'd be a relatively easy thing to check for in an update
hook; sure, they're a little easier to fake than authorship
information, but they permanently record the information.
On Jan 21, 5:14 pm, Jeffda wrote:
> Thanks for
Thanks for the replies/ideas. I think I'll stick with your idea,
Jacob, unless someone has an even more secure solution that's simpler
than creating a wrapper. Creating a wrapper is a good idea, I just
don't know how to, and I don't have time to figure out how to create
one.
Thanks again.
--
You
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:23, Jeffda wrote:
> Is it possible to allow commit, or patch apply, permissions for a
> user, but only if they aren't the ones that made the modification? For
> instance, if someone submits a patch to the user, the user will be
> able to apply the patch; however, if the
On Jan 21, 10:23 pm, Jeffda wrote:
> Is it possible to allow commit, or patch apply, permissions for a
> user, but only if they aren't the ones that made the modification? For
> instance, if someone submits a patch to the user, the user will be
> able to apply the patch; however, if the user crea
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:23:13AM -0800, Jeffda wrote:
> Is it possible to allow commit, or patch apply, permissions for a
> user, but only if they aren't the ones that made the modification? For
> instance, if someone submits a patch to the user, the user will be
> able to apply the patch; howeve
Is it possible to allow commit, or patch apply, permissions for a
user, but only if they aren't the ones that made the modification? For
instance, if someone submits a patch to the user, the user will be
able to apply the patch; however, if the user creates a patch, the
user shouldn't have the abil
