On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> > wrote: > > > > the difficult part comes in the sync, since they only deal with > artifacts. Once someone clones the repo, they have full access to that copy > to do with as they please. > > I’m not so sure about that. > > I think all that is required is for the access tags to be checked on both > check-in and on sync. > "All that is required." Just a trifling! ;) But seriously, that *is* the complicated part. It involves refactoring a fair amount of code so that it can be used in both places *or* it involves duplicating code so that the same checks can be done in both places. That's why it is the difficult part. Anyway, I’m still against this feature in principle, because I think it > tries to invent new mechanisms where they aren’t strictly needed. But, > it’s a fun design problem. :) > I'm not against it. Just stating *why* it would be difficult. As has been pointed out, there are many features that "aren't strictly needed" depending on just how strict one wants to be. Heck, why am I using VCS software instead of just keeping my own periodic backups in zip files? It just complicates things! Except for when it doesn't, just as some would find this sort of functionality advantageous for their use case. -- Scott Robison
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
