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 1RAqUS-00060k-GT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:56:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE58821C0FB; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710A921C0C3 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyg5 with SMTP id 5so3887244eyg.40 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:54:54 -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=Rv2h9QGJ2gQYJsuM0/i2PPczXWDToDSXvYRN6Ec6hDE=; b=QXNavYKO6ckFd+DgTlxilRQ9l43GHKfVBGZIbZcc/Et7/hAL0t/fPtKKPnO0d02XzE kR8al92CI15ExinvTusOWXXtUUETQBgIitU8wFJpNN2Bdh4z/04BkxyGBDEyoFk9xo/c X9+8tT8lXl0nbq2r2VnCRCSeGHQaBEu6HtIh8= 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 10.213.33.142 with SMTP id h14mr992590ebd.65.1317678894614; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.4.136 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:54:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E88B5AE.70705@orlitzky.com> 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 14:54:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Development framework with access restriction? From: Grant To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 6b0a972b15bd8a1bdb5550c7bf49cfd9 >> I think separate repositories would only be necessary when using >> distributed version control (git) as opposed to centralized >> (subversion). =A0I think subversion's path-based authorization should >> 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? I don't think you want the same stuff in more than one repo. It seems like managing multiple repos would get out of hand in that sort of situation and I might be better off with config files and a single repo. - Grant