Q: Access Control Options

[Alexander Belchenko]

Maritza Mendez пишет:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Alexander Belchenko <bialix at ukr.net 
> <mailto:bialix at ukr.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Maritza Mendez пишет:
> 
>          Hi.  There are a couple current threads here (ok, including one
>         I started) which include discussion of ACL-like properties for
>         branches.  So I assume there is interest in this topic.  I have
>         had typically bad expereinces with the ACL layer tacked onto
>         some commercial version control systems.  So I am very cautious
>         about suggesting similar "enhancements" to bzrlib.  Instead,
>         I've been thinking about the Un*x way -- many "little" tools,
>         each of which does one job extremely well -- and leveraging the
>         expertise and architecture already baked into every Linux box.
> 
> 
>     I was so naive to expect something which can be run on Windows-based
>     server machine... Silly me.
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that's humor which I am unable to translate.  :)  

That's a sad humor. I'm even not sure it was funny.

I don't have your experience about SVN auth solutions, and therefore I 
don't understand why built-in ACL support in the bzr:// protocol would 
hurt. I would like to understand all issues here. But as my naive 
expectation such thing like built-in ACL and simple users management 
will be so easy to use for people so everybody would love to use only 
the fastest bzr:// protocol because it would be so easy to set it up.

For example, there is still no bzr+ssh:// support on Savannah, only 
sftp. Why? Maybe because bzr+ssh:// is a bit harder to setup?

My personal interest in easy and built-in ACLs is to allow even the 
smallest company to setup bzr:// server on any spare computer. In such 
small companies there is no certified sysadmins at all, and people 
maintain their infrastructure themselves. I'm dreaming about: just 
install, configure (possible via qt-based wizard ;) and go!