>>>>> "PC" == Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: PC> So, does per-branch ACLs make sense to you? Have you had cases where PC> you thought it was good/bad? More importantly, have you had cases PC> where you would want to give someone access to just one branch and PC> really really do *not* want them to have access to the other PC> branches? To me it's more about information. Currently we can track who is working on, say, EPEL6 separately from Fedora. Since packaging for EPEL can be significantly different (though less so since EPEL5 is almost gone) it helps to keep that separate. There are many cases where maintainers for Fedora just don't want to be troubled with keeping track of what's required to make EPEL (and especially old EPEL) work. This does matter for, say, bugzilla assignments, but I don't think there's any real case where you'd want to prevent _in infrastructure_ someone from poking at a specific branch. If simple communication and the occasional git revert doesn't work then you have a much greater problem anyway. So per-branch _enforcement_ of ACLs doesn't seem particularly important to me, but I think it would still be useful to keep track somewhere. And of course we have to tell bugzilla something. - J< _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
