[fossil-users] Restrict access on per-directory or per-branch level?

2012-12-28 Thread Stefan Bellon
Hi all, is it possible in Fossil to configure read/write, read-only or no-access for users and/or groups on a per-directory or per-branch level like it is possible with e.g. Subversion with its "authz" file? Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Bellon ___ foss

Re: [fossil-users] Restrict access on per-directory or per-branch level?

2012-12-28 Thread Richard Hipp
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Stefan Bellon wrote: > Hi all, > > is it possible in Fossil to configure read/write, read-only or > no-access for users and/or groups on a per-directory or per-branch level > like it is possible with e.g. Subversion with its "authz" file? > When somebody clones t

Re: [fossil-users] Restrict access on per-directory or per-branch level?

2012-12-28 Thread Stefan Bellon
On Fri, 28 Dec, Richard Hipp wrote: > When somebody clones the repository,and has a local copy of the > repository, then they can do anything they want with that local copy > since it is a file they own. Permissions only come into plan when > dealing with a remote server. Right. So, of course, t

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil scalability

2012-12-28 Thread Stefan Bellon
On Sat, 22 Dec, Stefan Bellon wrote: > In order to verify whether the problem really is the timestamp, I'm > now trying to convert just one of the four repositories using the > method of sharing the workspace. Let's see what happens after 5000 or > 9000 revisions. This method was "quick enough".

Re: [fossil-users] Restrict access on per-directory or per-branch level?

2012-12-28 Thread Mike Meyer
Stefan Bellon wrote: >On Fri, 28 Dec, Richard Hipp wrote: >> When somebody clones the repository,and has a local copy of the >> repository, then they can do anything they want with that local copy >> since it is a file they own. Permissions only come into plan when >> dealing with a remote serv

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil vs. Git/Mercurial/etc.?

2012-12-28 Thread Nico Williams
Rebase is one of teh killer features of git; the other killer features of git are in Fossil already, but rebase is not. And fossil adds its own killer features: built-in web service, JSON RESTful API, wiki and tickets integrated (and versioned, natch). How many times have you submitted a patch to

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil vs. Git/Mercurial/etc.?

2012-12-28 Thread Mike Meyer
Nico Williams wrote: >Rebase is one of teh killer features of git. It certainly kills any interest I have in using git on a regular basis. >How many times have you submitted a patch to an upstream and then been >told to make a bunch of changes, re-organize your commits, make >specific changes