K. Richard Pixley wrote:
I think this is a weakness. In the same way that I want to be able to
authorize changes using a more common authentication mechanism, I also
want to be able to state and apply authorization mechanisms on a
per-branch basis.
Actually, it should really be possible to do
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:39:41 -0700, K. Richard
Pixley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This sounds like the beginning of a complete redesign of the monotone
authentication mechanism. I assume there's space for user
authentication and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:30:11 -0700, K. Richard
Pixley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rich Thanks. That's exactly what I've been trying to guage - how
rich close, how much work, how much time, etc. My current client may
rich be willing to accept some modest level of
Emile Snyder wrote:
Can you clarify at all what sort of support an SCM could give you to let
you have 128 concurrent developers on one branch all churning a given
file?
I wasn't necessarily thinking of them on the same branch.
Emile Snyder wrote:
These all seem like nice things,
Just reading the manual yesterday and the obvious question came to mind.
Why SHA1 instead of serials?
The manual suggested that any reasonable alternative be offered. So
here it is. The obvious alternative in my mind is a serial number. I
understand that there's a problem in trying to provide
On 4/19/05, K. Richard Pixley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Bright wrote:
Hi,
Hey. :-).
To provide globally unique serials, one would need to include some
representation of the location at which an event occurred.
It's an idea that's been considered, but has a number of
Timothy Brownawell wrote:
This is why I suggested that the repository be named. Presumably, the name
would be based on domain name, but the real point is that domain names
follow hierarchical delegation.
But how is this enforced?
The same way monotone currently enforces
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
rich *Conclusion:* using /serial:repostory-name/ would probably
rich require some level of security on a repository basis.
Another conclusion is that your digging yourself into security-related
problems that aren't needed in the first place.
That's certainly
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:56:32AM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Nope, and that's not interesting. Every revision carries along the
key identity of the committer, however. That's probably more
interesting than the particular host the revision came from.
