On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:13:14PM +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:28:52 +0100 > Lluís Batlle i Rossell <vi...@viric.name> wrote: > > [...] > > > That's correct, but Lluis is right in suggesting that we "should > > > have" a command like: > > > > > > fossil ping repo-address > > > > > > which can piggyback on the protocols supported by cloning (ssh/http > > > [s]), but: > > > > > > a) does no authentication checks (because we cannot know which > > > permissions would be required by later commands). > > > b) does no useful work - simply checks for connectivity. > > > c) returns a trivial response, e.g. "OK" or "FAIL", and uses the > > > exit code to report success/failure. > > > > Well it would be better if it reported something like 'fossil info' > > for tip. :) > > This might contradict point (a) above in certain setups, does it? > I mean that my own repos require authentication only for pushing but > supposedly there might be some use for locked down private repos. > I just don't know is it possible to "fully lock" a Fossil repo so that > any access to it must be authenticated.
I find this behaviour reasonable: If the url had a username, it could ask for a password. And in any case, if the rights aren't ok to fetch the info, it should fail. I'd make it work with the 'timeline' or 'clone' permission flags. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
