[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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]