From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.215.6.39] (helo=ice.mudshark.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H0qeR-0003qB-ED for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:42:19 +0100 Received: by ice.mudshark.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 11D80134024; Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:41:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:41:26 -0800 From: jack-oe@mudshark.org To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20061231024125.GL18175@ice.mudshark.org> References: <20061230051641.GA30225@hezmatt.org> <1167506369.5626.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1167506369.5626.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: A question of workflow X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:42:20 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 1041 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LG0Ll82vYr46+VA1" Content-Disposition: inline --LG0Ll82vYr46+VA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 07:19:29PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: =20 > What you've described is how I or any other OE developer with an > authorised monotone key would work with OE. The problem is we can't just > give access to anyone as that wouldn't make any sense for obvious > reasons. =20 Monotone supports trust relations[0] as well as netsync access controls[1]. Netsync access controls are primarily to prevent someone trashing your repository. OE restricts write access to the repository on openembedded.org= .=20 Trust relations are orthogonal to access control. Monotone allows you to on= ly trust revisions committed by certain users(keys). In the case of a single trusted repository, that only a certain number of developers have write access to -- they're the same thing.=20 However, in the case where you have multiple repositories, with different permissions, things can get complicated. There is work ongoing in monotone = to make this simpler[2].=20 > It does mean you shouldn't be committing changes locally via monotone. > If you do this you will have to pull and then merge every time. That > isn't a problem in itself but if you do get direct commit access, we > will not be happy adding hundreds of extra merges to the main > repository. Yeah. Or commit your changes to a private branch, and 'propagate' changes t= here from the main branch.=20 The monotone wiki has a series of (incomplete) best practices[3]. Important= are DaggyFixes[4], and CommitEarlyCommitOften[5].. Cheers,=20 --Jack=20 [0] http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/TrustFoundations [1] section 6.1.3 of http://venge.net/monotone/docs/Hooks.html [2] http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/VersionedPolicy=20 [3] http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/BestPractices [4] http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/DaggyFixes [3] http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/CommitEarlyCommitOften -- Jack (John) Cummings http://mudshark.org/ PGP fingerprint: 0774 D073 E386 B70B 6B16 2D2B 1DD8 F8B0 CCF0 FAEE --LG0Ll82vYr46+VA1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFlyNVPVO9yHkX+AIRAlfVAKCpSy/5MpjrrL54EigjbI+84jqq5QCbBizK N68V/gi05mJaXYuWog/tvtY= =5Qqt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LG0Ll82vYr46+VA1--