On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 01:16 +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:01:19 -0500, Timothy
> Brownawell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> tbrownaw> On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 15:46 -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> tbrownaw> > On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 21:40 +0200, Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
> tbrownaw> > > Finally, I don't think I like the syntax you propose.
> tbrownaw> > > Is this already used somewhare?
> tbrownaw> > > I think access control configuration is used in lots
> tbrownaw> > > of places, so maybe there is already a thought out
> tbrownaw> > > format for these kind of things.
> tbrownaw> > > But he, I am not an expert on this at all.
> tbrownaw> >
> tbrownaw> > I don't think its great either, but I'm not sure what would be
> better.
> tbrownaw>
> tbrownaw> Random idea:
> tbrownaw>
> tbrownaw>
> tbrownaw> pattern "net.example.project.{security,private}*"
> tbrownaw> allow "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> tbrownaw> allow "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> tbrownaw>
> tbrownaw> pattern "net.example.{public,project}*"
> tbrownaw> others "allow"
>
> Random response:
>
> I think it's quite confusing how the format is sometimes
> 'verb "subject"' and sometimes 'subject "verb"'. I would rather have
> some kind of consistency:
>
> pattern "net.example.project.{security,private}*"
> allow "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> allow "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
> pattern "net.example.{public,project}*"
> allow "*"
But there needs to be some form of 'others "continue"'. Maybe 'continue
"true"', or just 'continue' without arguments?
Tim
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
