I thought about both of those (/tmp/private and /tmp/public), but couldn't think of a way to make them work.
1. If we do /tmp/private, we have to svn mv all the existing trees there which will annoy the developers (but is not a deal-breaker) and make /tmp publicly readable. But that makes the history of all the private branches public. 2. If we do /tmp/public, I'm not quite sure how to setup the perms in SH to do that - if we setup /tmp to be 'no read access' for * and /tmp/public to have 'read access' for *, will a non authenticated user be able to reach /tmp/private? -jms -----Original Message----- From: Brian Barrett [mailto:bbarr...@lanl.gov] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:51 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Open MPI Developers Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Public tmp branches ugh, sorry, I've been busy this week and didn't see a timeout, so a response got delayed. I really don't like this format. public doesn't have any meaning to it (tmp suggests, well, it's temporary). I'd rather have /tmp/ and / tmp/private or something like that. Or /tmp/ and /tmp/public/. Either way :/. Brian On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > I didn't really put this in RFC format with a timeout, but no one > objected, so I have created: > > http://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/ompi/public > > Developers should feel free to use this tree for public temporary > branches. Specifically: > > - use /tmp if your branch is intended to be private > - use /public if your branch is intended to be public > > Enjoy. > > > On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> Right now all branches under /tmp are private to the OMPI core group >> (e.g., to allow unpublished academic work). However, there are >> definitely cases where it would be useful to allow public branches >> when there's development work that is public but not yet ready for >> the trunk. Periodically, we go an assign individual permissions to / >> tmp branches (like I just did to /tmp/vt-integration), but it would >> be easier if we had a separate tree for public "tmp" branches. >> >> Would anyone have an objection if I added /public (or any better name >> that someone can think of) for tmp-style branches, but that are open >> for read-only access to the public? >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> Cisco Systems >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
