[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Locking a branch
From: |
Paul Sander |
Subject: |
Re: Locking a branch |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:58:22 -0700 |
>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Paul Sander wrote:
>> >> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
>> >> From: Pat Young <address@hidden>
>> >> To: address@hidden
>> >> Subject: [info-cvs] Locking a branch
>> >>
>> >> What is the best way to lock a branch? Should I use
>>
>> >How about:
>>
>> >``Please don't commit to this branch until told otherwise, or you
>> >will be fired on grounds of inability to follow instructions.''
>>
>> >Why work with people that require a piece of software to stop them from
>> >doing what they aren't supposed to?
>>
>> Everybody makes mistakes. Good tools warn people when they're about to
>> do something bad.
>How can the computer tell that what you are committing is okay or not
>for the given branch?
>One way is to require the commit message to have a certain format,
>like to include 'Bug number: <integer>'.
Another is to match your user ID with a list of users permitted to commit
on a particular branch. Such a list would also have the notion of
"everyone" and "no one" and perhaps some notion of group membership
to give better control and easier maintenance.
>That's not really locking; that's setting a condition for the commit,
>which will catch inappropriate commits, deliberate or accidental.
Some people call them locks, some people call them conditions. Using
/bin/false as a condition is the same thing as a lock, and the absence
of a condition grants wide-open access.
>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden