Re: Server-side SavePoints

[Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>]

Just picking up on one small point here...

Daniel J. Lacks, PhD wrote:
>>> The stash would work similar to a commit
>>> except it would check-in code perhaps in a hidden or protected branch
>>> [...]
>>
>> Making namespaces of branches that are 'hidden' or 'protected' is 
>> something that can potentially be done with server authz rules, but is 
>> this important for you? Why? [...]
> 
> [...]  Configuring authz rules is not something the typical user [...]

Completely agree. What I meant was: Do you really need these stashes to 
be 'hidden' or 'protected'? Why, what for? Do the authz rules provide 
the semantics you need? (If so, we could build this in to the feature.)

My take on this is that "I don't want my private work to be seen by 
everybody by default" and "other people shouldn't be able to write to MY 
shelves area" are the sort of reactions that potential users have, that 
aren't real requirements. Another is "I don't want my repository growing 
bigger and bigger with temporary work; I need these to be completely 
deleted". That one is totally different and has huge implications for 
the design, but again I think it is a bogus "requirement" that is really 
only a nice-to-have.

I can only think of these in the abstract, so far. If your real-life 
experience sheds light on them, that would be very valuable input.

- Julian

Re: Server-side SavePoints

["Daniel J. Lacks, PhD" <Da...@aol.com>]

Julian,

Thanks, if you can, please give me a couple of weeks to think about it 
and work on some diagrams.  I also want to speak with people that use 
SVN that I work with to make sure I am not coming up with ideas in a 
bubble. Also if anyone has advice or opinions on this forum, feel free 
to share them in the mean time.  I will do my best to research what is 
already requested on the forum to come up with the requirement or 
desired capability.

Thanks,

Danny


On 11/3/2017 7:06 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Just picking up on one small point here...
>
> Daniel J. Lacks, PhD wrote:
>>>> The stash would work similar to a commit
>>>> except it would check-in code perhaps in a hidden or protected branch
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Making namespaces of branches that are 'hidden' or 'protected' is 
>>> something that can potentially be done with server authz rules, but 
>>> is this important for you? Why? [...]
>>
>> [...]  Configuring authz rules is not something the typical user [...]
>
> Completely agree. What I meant was: Do you really need these stashes 
> to be 'hidden' or 'protected'? Why, what for? Do the authz rules 
> provide the semantics you need? (If so, we could build this in to the 
> feature.)
>
> My take on this is that "I don't want my private work to be seen by 
> everybody by default" and "other people shouldn't be able to write to 
> MY shelves area" are the sort of reactions that potential users have, 
> that aren't real requirements. Another is "I don't want my repository 
> growing bigger and bigger with temporary work; I need these to be 
> completely deleted". That one is totally different and has huge 
> implications for the design, but again I think it is a bogus 
> "requirement" that is really only a nice-to-have.
>
> I can only think of these in the abstract, so far. If your real-life 
> experience sheds light on them, that would be very valuable input.
>
> - Julian


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus