Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Sébastien Abras wrote: > On version 2.0.26, I found something quite anoying concerning the > branch right management. > > I have a project on which 'default' user is read only and 'user1' is > rwc : > cvs lsacl returns : > default:r > user1:rwc > > If 'user1' creates a branch and then work in it, he cannot commit in > it unless he specified explicitly that he has the right to (through > cvs chacl).IMO, this extra step will quickly make work tedious when > working with branches. Hopefully, version 2.0.24 does conform to > previous ACL management. > > I think HEAD ACL should expand to branch ACL for all users (not only > default) when nothing is specified for that branch and that user. > Ouch! Another poster (Jan Rychtar) had recommended such a change too--and looking at it from this angle certainly makes sense. Tony, in light of this scenario, what do you think? I'm thinking I agree with the amendment that any ACL with an unspecified branch should apply to all. Basically implying that the previous behavior had an implicit "(main)" branch specified on it if no specific branch was specified, and now it would be saying that no branch specified means 'all branches without specific permissions for this user | default'. I think I'm willing to accept either way, but it does seem counter-intuitive. Then again, I haven't though through the entire problem. Regards, -------------------- Glen Starrett