> > As I understand it, none of the repository backends allow any per-user > > per-branch access control. > The idea in git (unless you really want to get the same setup as in CVS, > which would be rather sad) is that every developer has at least one > repository. Write-access: only one developer. Believe me: I was ready to throw a party when I got to shutdown CVS last week. Say I have two utterly separate repositories with two integrators. I want to put them on a web server (and so same DAV share). There is little to stop the integrator of one project (by intention or accident) from modifying the other repository. It can be done, but doing it requires one section of the httpd.conf per repository. Using SSH requires many real user accounts on the system and then if there are more than one integrator, groups to administrate. > I already hear the complaint: "But you need a central repository!". If you > _have_ to have a central repository, designate the integrator's repository > central. Okay, say one regular developer wants share his changes with another developer. He either has to mail patches, create an SSH account, or set up one of git-daemon or WebDAV. And most of those require knowing the workstation name which is inconvienient. I would rather have each user able to push to a branch with their name on it on a central server. -- --Andre Masella (andre at masella.no-ip.org) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html