On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 15:46 -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 21:40 +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
> > Finally, I don't think I like the syntax you propose.
> > Is this already used somewhare?
> > I think access control configuration is used in lots
> > of places, so maybe there is already a thought out
> > format for these kind of things.
> > But he, I am not an expert on this at all.
>
> I don't think its great either, but I'm not sure what would be better.
Random idea:
pattern "net.example.project.{security,private}*"
allow "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
allow "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
pattern "net.example.{public,project}*"
others "allow"
where others defaults to "deny" if not mentioned, and setting it to
"continue" or something means "look for other blocks that match the
branch we're checking permissions for".
Tim
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
