Hi David, you are full of ideas as usual.

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 13:16 +0930, David O'Shea wrote:
> Hi Kristis,
> 
> Yes, I guess that preventing commits to tags is really quite a small thing, 
> and since there are plenty of things we want to do which do depend on the bug 
> tracking integration, it doesn't really matter if there is one part that 
> COULD be separated.
> 
> Is there a bug covering your suggestions regarding the access control based 
> on the integration?  I was thinking just yesterday how I would like to have a 
> per-branch state, say one of:


Yes. Ideas on this are in:

http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=859

It includes your feedback from about a year ago. Only now you have som
more :)

I just added this on the roadmap. Realistically, I see this getting
implemented around 2008Q1, unless I'm really motivated :)

> 1. allow all commits
> 2. only allow commits that specify a bug ID
> 3. only allow commits that specify one of a specific set of bug IDs (although 
> I guess using keywords might be a better way of implementing this)
> 4. only allow commits from certain user IDs (which might not be the product 
> manager or component owner - it might be someone that they have delegated to)
> 5. prevent all commits
> 
> As usual, I wish I could contribute to the project, but I'm not the IT guy :(
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> David O'Shea
> Engineer
> DSpace Pty Ltd
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.dspace.com.au
> T: +61 8 8260 8118
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristis Makris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2007 10:31
> > To: David O'Shea
> > Cc: Marcel Loose; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [scmbug-users] Enhancement request: do not allow commit
> > toatag in Subversion
> > 
> > 
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > I see where you are going with this. It feels more natural to separate
> > access control from integration. I doubt there would be any noticable
> > performance penalty.
> > 
> > I can however think of some situations where "access control" may need
> > to rely on the integration. For example allow commits on a specific
> > branch only by the product manager or a component owner (both are
> > defined in the bug-tracker). Or commits should be accepted on a branch
> > only against bugs flagged by a specific keyword in the 
> > bug-tracker (e.g.
> > ACCEPT_WHILE_FROZEN_FOR_3.0_RELEASE). Or only against bugs that have a
> > patch pending for review. The point is that setting read-only 
> > tags is a
> > subset of setting up branches that accept limited patches going into
> > them (e.g. a released, stable branch that should only accept minor bug
> > fixes).
> > 
> > The big argument you raise though is that implementation of access
> > control should not interfere with the ease of configuration 
> > of the other
> > features of Scmbug. And I don't have a viewpoint or design of how this
> > could be implemented yet. This seems to be a much more 
> > general problem:
> > most SCM systems don't support such fine-grained control of 
> > access. And
> > to implement it, one needs to implement hooks and at least decode the
> > SCM systems arguments to those hooks. All of which Scmbug does.
> > 
> > Perhaps you are just outlining the need for a more modular 
> > architecture.
> > Were we should supply package scm-glue (which offers the 
> > logic to decode
> > the hooks), and particular implementations of using those hooks from
> > there one (scm-glue-scmbug, scm-glue-DSpaceACL). I can't turn against
> > that. Perhaps people need the modularity of a common framework for
> > implementing on their own ... all the new features they keep 
> > requesting
> > from Scmbug.
> > 
> > The attitude so far had been to implement all in one framework only
> > because progress was relatively fast and no-one else was showing
> > interest in cooperating.
> > 
> > Hmmmmm....
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 09:04 +0930, David O'Shea wrote:
> > > Hi Kristis, Marcel,
> > > 
> > > Just a thought on this: Here, we use a modified version of 
> > commit-access-control.pl to make tags read-only.  Would it be 
> > better to concentrate on making scmbug very good at 
> > integrating SCM and bug tracking and avoid adding features 
> > that aren't tied in with that?  If someone wanted read-only 
> > tags but not SCM-bug tracking integration, would it not be 
> > difficult for them to set scmbug up this way?  If you had two 
> > tools, scmbug plus something like commit-access-control.pl, 
> > sure you would have the annoyance of having to tell two 
> > different tools how your branches/tags/trunk in Subversion 
> > are laid out, but that could probably be easily fixed by 
> > making a common configuration file and with some 
> > #include-style directive.  Would there be significant 
> > performance differences between using one hook and two hooks?
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > David
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > David O'Shea
> > > Engineer
> > > DSpace Pty Ltd
> > > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > www.dspace.com.au
> > > T: +61 8 8260 8118
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
> > > > Kristis Makris
> > > > Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 05:01
> > > > To: Marcel Loose
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: [scmbug-users] Enhancement request: do not allow 
> > > > commit to
> > > > atag in Subversion
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Marcel, what you are proposing is not just possible 
> > but would be an
> > > > ideal feature we'd like to add. This was proposed sometime ago:
> > > > 
> > > > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=859
> > > > 
> > > > No one is working on it right now.
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 13:29 +0200, Marcel Loose wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > One of the "problems" I have with Subversion is that it 
> > > > allows you to commit to a tag (CVS will not let you do this, 
> > > > unless it is a branch tag of course). According to the 
> > > > Subversion manual, you can make the tags directory 
> > > > "create-only" by using an access control hook script. So, 
> > > > since Scmbug is actually a, very nice and versatile, hook 
> > > > script, would it be possible to add an option to Scmbug to 
> > > > disallow commits to an existing directory in the tags directory?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Marcel Loose.
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > scmbug-users mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
> > > > 
> > 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
scmbug-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users

Reply via email to