From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Intland Software Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] codeBeamer MR - Easy ACL for Git Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:50:02 +0100 Message-ID: <4B054D0A.5030802@intland.com> References: <4B03B153.1020302@intland.com> <20091118120936.GL17748@machine.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Petr Baudis X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 19 14:50:19 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NB7Oq-0000Rc-Eb for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:50:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756974AbZKSNuA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:50:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756862AbZKSNuA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:50:00 -0500 Received: from mail02a.mail.t-online.hu ([84.2.40.7]:57471 "EHLO mail02a.mail.t-online.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756866AbZKSNt6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:49:58 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.65] (dsl4E5C0E4F.pool.t-online.hu [78.92.14.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail02a.mail.t-online.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7F16256D02; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:49:26 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) In-Reply-To: <20091118120936.GL17748@machine.or.cz> X-DCC-mail.t-online.hu-Metrics: mail02a.mail.t-online.hu 32721; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Petr Baudis wrote: > I think a lot of people wonder now, how does this compare to existing > solutions; from your announcement I thought it's something like > Gitosis/Gitolite, but in fact it seems more similar to Gitorious or > GitHub (if it was publicly available, of course); perhaps it would be All right, some quick comparisons with codeBeamer Managed Repository (MR). * MR against Gitosis In terms of access control, MR has the concept of "role", and it makes our security model more fine grained. Permissions can be set by role. One user account can have multiple roles. Roles are project-dependent. When you add a group to a project, you can assign multiple roles to the group (which is equivalent with assigning those roles to each group member one by one). On the other hand, MR has a much broader scope than Gitosis. MR helps you to manage your repos, to track your tasks/bugs/issues, to follow commit activities, to browse repos in the web, can be extended using its APIs, etc. (And you don't have to install and maintain Git extensions for this.) * MR against Gitolite Pretty much the same applies here as well. * MR against GitHub & Gitorious Probably the most significant difference is that MR is available as free download, and can run behind your firewall. MR was derived from the source code of our commercial product codeBeamer. CodeBeamer is a full-blown enterprise collaboration solution, thus MR is likely to focus more on the enterprise needs, not on the "social" aspect.