Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Robert Anderson" <address@hidden>

    > I am working in an NFS environment where all access to an archive
    > is "local."  

    [....]


    > The problem is of course that due to a non-negotiable,
    > shop-mandated umask, the ++revision-lock directory is not group
    > writable, and each person who commits locks out all the others
    > until they make it so.  This is problematic both functionally and
    > in the "why are you giving us this crap tool which chokes on the
    > most basic of operations" depts.

    > So I'm looking for a solution.  

Why don't you use some non-local transport for that archive, then?

The general problem is that you have a local policy about access
control for individual user accounts into which your access policy for
the archive can not be mapped.   Using a server for the archive allows
you set up an archive-specific access policy for the archive, though.



    > I am interested enough in a solution that I could probably find
    > an evening or two to spend working on it, if I thought it would
    > help.

You could spend an evening just setting up a server.

Alternatively, looking (at least briefly) back at the Xouvert thread,
it seems we overlooked a sane solution at that time (blush.  But then
that's why I proposed the "make a new savannah account" solution after
all - to buy time to think):

While I would be against the "copy permissions" hack and against a
"tla umask" command, I would not be against support for archive 
URLs of the forms (suitably adjusted if I've violated uri syntax):


        file%umask=XXX://path/to/your/archive

        sftp%umask=XXX:/address@hidden/path/to/your/archive

        sftp:/%umask=XXX,address@hidden/path/to/your/archive

        etc.

-t