obliterate functionality?

[cowwoc]

Masklinn wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20 Mar 2008, at 02:54 , cowwoc wrote:
>> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you seen Linus' talk on Distributed Version Control Systems?  
>>> While he
>>> is
>>> not always nice about it, he has some interesting things to say on  
>>> why it
>>> is
>>> good if all repository mirrors are created equal.
>>>
>>
>> Let's be clear here: repository mirrors are repository clients are two
>> different things. For one thing, mirrors to be equal to one another in
>> permission whereas clients tend to have less control. One would expect
>> mirrors with read/write access to fall under the guise of the same  
>> trusted
>> organization, or else how do you prevent someone from checking in  
>> random
>> junk into the FreeBSD repository using one of the mirrors? Point  
>> being, if
>> all mirrors are equal, then they should respect each other's  
>> obliterate
>> commands.
>> -- 
> 
> There are no "repository clients" in Mercurial. Or in Git, or in  
> Bazaar-NG, or in Darcs, for that matter. Any clone of an existing  
> repository is a mirror, and as all mirrors are equal, all clones of an  
> initial "root" repository are equal to one another and to the "root".
> 

That's fine. So Sun's mirrors would recognize one another and give each
other permission to obliterate, whereas if obliterate came from an
unknown/untrusted repository (my concept of a client) it would reject the
operation based on insufficient permissions. Would that work?

Gili
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/obliterate-functionality--tp16114445p16177819.html
Sent from the Mercurial mailing list archive at Nabble.com.