On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jacek Cała <jacek.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> i am assuming by "each repo" you mean "each clone" (which is also "each >> repo"). If that is the case, i can conceive of this working strictly >> locally, but i still don't see how it can possibly scale if those numbers >> propagate in any way. If i clone the repo 100 times, do i end up with 1.1 >> ... 1.100 ? >> > > Yes, that would only mean that your clone tickets will start with > '1.100-...' but it doesn't affect clone '1' much. All tickets of '1' are in > form of '1-n' > There's the rub. For that to happen, the number needs to be save in the repo, which requires write access to the repo for anyone who can clone (and guest can clone from most repos). That alone is a potential hole which more security-conscious people wouldn't tolerate. If some malicious **** ran this from 10 shells: # while true; do rm -f clone.fsl; fossil clone http://.... clone.fsl; done and let it run for a few days, he's just screwed up my numbering so bad that i probably won't want to use sequential numbering anymore. It's not helpful if my numbers are 8 digits long. i used to think that fossil was immune to the attentions of "those sorts of people" but i have had my own fossil wikis attacked/replaced by bots (due to a permissions mishap, not a fossil bug), so i'm weary of anything which gives anyone any sort of write access which i don't explicitly give them. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
