Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-03-02 Thread Robert Collins
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > From the thread so far, it seems like the simplest thing might be to > allow branches to only be made official when they are also directly > owned by the distro series owner? That seems more complex than just fixing the permissions, and less u

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-03-01 Thread Martin Pool
On 18 February 2011 17:27, Robert Collins wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >> On 18 February 2011 16:27, Robert Collins wrote: >>> What about 3 - have no owner at all: there is a unique path for each >>> package branch, so we could just use that, and only that, for th

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Robert Collins
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > On 18 February 2011 16:27, Robert Collins wrote: >> What about 3 - have no owner at all: there is a unique path for each >> package branch, so we could just use that, and only that, for the >> branch path for official package branches. > > Tha

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Martin Pool
On 18 February 2011 16:27, Robert Collins wrote: > What about 3 - have no owner at all: there is a unique path for each > package branch, so we could just use that, and only that, for the > branch path for official package branches. That's fine with me. It seemed like it might be harder to imple

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Robert Collins
What about 3 - have no owner at all: there is a unique path for each package branch, so we could just use that, and only that, for the branch path for official package branches. Rob -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Martin Pool
On 18 February 2011 12:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:34:28 am Martin Pool wrote: >> There are a few options here and we'd appreciate hearing from Ubuntu >> people how they think it should work: >> >> 0- No change: the nominal owner keeps write access. >> >> 1- Don'

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:34:28 am Martin Pool wrote: > We have a question in about > what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how > they should be explained to the user. > > The basic thing is that Launchpad knows who is al

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 07:19:29 pm Martin Pool wrote: > On 18 February 2011 10:43, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 06:33:35 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: > >> On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Robert Collins
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > Anyhow, the gist of it would be that it would still have a nominal > owner, but an owner that no human can access. This is the key bit AIUI: > The only access would > be through Ubuntu package access control rules. I think whatever option get

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Martin Pool
On 18 February 2011 10:43, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 06:33:35 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >> >>>

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 06:33:35 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: > On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: > >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > >>> We have a question in

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread John Arbash Meinel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >>> We have a question in about >>> what the permi

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Jonathan Lange
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >> > We have a question in about >> > what the permissions on official package branc

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: > On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > > We have a question in about > > what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how > > they should be explained to the us

Re: rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-17 Thread John Arbash Meinel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > We have a question in about > what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how > they should be explained to the user. Obviously people feel ver

rfc: permissions on package branches

2011-02-14 Thread Martin Pool
We have a question in about what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how they should be explained to the user. The basic thing is that Launchpad knows who is allowed to write to a package, and it already has special code that gives