From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RAqbU-0006yu-Rp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:03:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CF7621C154; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197E521C0B3 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so7439337bkb.40 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:00:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4qmslwvcxW8Vu0e0CDYmVteZBuCzekV637r+CXuw3iA=; b=M780zW0mdTReq0R+h0/3f1OJckIEMYD5yaM8bMlMy/IMS7uMpJztVFbu0iwzurVs76 PApzf5HAczScIP89Y6U79d4GsGKzO3+b4AJmCOHRX15N8tyu+ZwvdL4WwGivLQ+51o1g 4d9yzCiGEDcCvi6EKxMfHd+b7w8zNL8OJoirU= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.7.133 with SMTP id d5mr258556bkd.25.1317679255265; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.177.199 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:00:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E80F086.9010804@orlitzky.com> <20110929091341.128242e2@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <4E84A98B.4070101@orlitzky.com> <4E865D7F.8080106@orlitzky.com> <4E88B5AE.70705@orlitzky.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:00:55 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Development framework with access restriction? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3f103a90295a2c2031ce9a7d0a6d4370 On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Grant wrote: >>> I think separate repositories would only be necessary when using >>> distributed version control (git) as opposed to centralized >>> (subversion). =C2=A0I think subversion's path-based authorization shoul= d >>> eliminate the need for separate repositories? >>> >> >> Separate repos aren't strictly necessary, but it's much harder to verify >> your path permissions than it is to verify that your repositories are >> separate. >> >> The first involves config files and cascading information; the second >> involves being able to count to two =3D) > > Would multiple repos work in a scenario where different developers > have access to different stuff and some stuff should be accessible to > multiple devs? =C2=A0I don't think you want the same stuff in more than o= ne > repo. =C2=A0It seems like managing multiple repos would get out of hand i= n > that sort of situation and I might be better off with config files and > a single repo. With SVN, you do have 'externals' available: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch07s03.html Where I work, externals are used for holding common code like large libraries which are needed or useful to multiple projects. --=20 :wq