RE: [Squeak-VMdev] RE: Pending 3.2 and VM sources @ sourceforge

[Bert F. <be...@is...>]

With the commitinfo script it is easy to restrict access on a directory
basis. It's somewhat harder to limit access to individual files. But I see
no way to ensure a file is indeed committed to a branch, rather than to 
the trunk.

See http://www.gnu.org/manual/cvs-1.9/html_node/cvs_134.html
and http://www.loria.fr/~molli/fom-serve/cache/93.html

-- Bert

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Ian,
> 
> I think this would be great. My major concern is mostly making errors so
> I wouldn't even require this to be "secure" in any way. What it should
> do is to make it harder to do stupid mistakes and for that it seems
> perfectly applicable.
> 
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squ...@li... 
> > [mailto:squ...@li...] On Behalf 
> > Of Ian Piumarta
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:44 PM
> > To: Rob Withers
> > Cc: squ...@li...
> > Subject: RE: [Squeak-VMdev] RE: Pending 3.2 and VM sources @ 
> > sourceforge
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 13 May 2002, Rob Withers wrote:
> > > 
> > > Do we know that we can restrict access to the main trunk to the
> > > maintainers, then issue expanded rights to select 
> > individuals to their
> > > branches?
> > 
> > You can do it with a trivial commitinfo script to filter the usernames
> > that are allowed to commit to a particular area.  (The script 
> > is called on
> > every commit with env vars and arguments telling who, what, 
> > where, etc.  
> > If the script exits with nonzero then the commit is aborted.  
> > A few lines
> > of case/sed/test/etc. does the trick.)
> > 
> > Of course, for this to be in any way secure, SF must only 
> > allow admins to
> > meddle with the contents of CVSROOT/commitinfo.
> > 
> > Ciao,
> > Ian