Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:54:58 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Koshy <jkoshy> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@apollo.backplane.com Subject: Re: proposal: simple cvs mod to handle shared checked-out source trees Message-ID: <199812030154.RAA08114@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Dec 1998 16:03:42 MST." <199812022303.QAA09143@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > We have 20+ people who need modify-access to various company-wide > > configuration files. If I replace /usr/bin/cvs with a wrapper I screw > > up some of the traditional source projects (where we don't want relaxed > > group perms). > Ok, write a wrapper that checks for -g, and then have it relax the > permissions. With a umask of 00x, you can't prevent users from stomping on each others work, without commit log traces / source change history etc. If this is acceptable then why not have one copy of the checked out tree chmod'ed 77x and let everyone loose on it? Why use a source control system in the first place? One of CVS design axioms is that each developer checks out an independent copy of the sources under CVS control. Perhaps I haven't understood Matt's problem yet, but to me the proposed "-g" option seems unwarranted. If handling 30,000 files in CVS is a problem there are many work-arounds ranging from script wrappers, reorganizing the directory tree into subdirs, having scripts to maintain symlink trees, or perhaps just checking out the minimum files needed, Because this is unix, these work-arounds can be automated to a fair degree and need not come in the way of the developers. > Again, this is a very site-specific change that shouldn't go into > FreeBSD, IMO. Agreed. Koshy <jkoshy@freebsd.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812030154.RAA08114>