[cap-talk] More Heresey: ACLs not inherently bad

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 20:38 +0100, Mark Seaborn wrote:
> If you mean that today's decentralised SCMs don't treat files and
> directories as mutable objects to be access-controlled, I entirely
> agree with you.  I think that is a good feature.  Treating files and
> directories as mutable objects with their own internal history is a
> characteristic of centralised SCMs; I much prefer the model of
> decentralised SCMs.  With DSCMs, it is branches that are subject to
> access control.

What SCM model you prefer, and whether or not I share your preference,
isn't really pertinent to the concrete problem instantiation I set
forth, which corresponded to what you describe above as a centralised
SCM implementing access controls.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion here, but asserting that
requirements not to your liking do not need to be addressed is not a
satisfactory response.

I'm not sure whether you intended an implicit non-requirements assertion
above or not. What I'm really trying to say is that a lot of people on
this list are prone to that response, and it's not an appropriate
response in the present discussion. We're not trying to determine
whether the policy is a good idea. We're trying to determine how to
implement a policy that a whole lot of people would like to see
implemented, even though it may be imperfect or even (in the eyes of
some) undesired.


shap