Hi, On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Andre Masella wrote: > > > 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. Congratulations! > 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. I thought you can do all the fancy WebDAV stuff with .htaccess? > > 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. Most likely just start git-daemon. It's read-only (in the future, you might be able to enable anonymous push, but not right now), so you don't have to worry. > And most of those require knowing the workstation name which is > inconvienient. Umm. Oh. Okay. Didn't expect _that_ to be inconvenient. > I would rather have each user able to push to a branch with their name > on it on a central server. Really, the easiest is to setup a central server with SSH, where every user has an individual account. Administrating, say, a Linux box with literally thousands of users is a charm. Ciao, Dscho - 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