Re: Does git have "Path-Based Authorization"?
- From
- Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 2, 2011, 03:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAN0CFw3ZDcXtD7WChjkT1Vg0cU_u==4KCHo8ff-ccbyxZ8xWjg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8B2rhXvGKUsu10Po8cCi7p8uqWXWE5ZHB2Z6hH-aMyR2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Show 20 quoted lines
>> How would something like that work in a case like mine where I have a
>> series of maybe 100 files and I only want to give my developer
>> read/write access to one or a few files at a time with no read or
>> write access to any of the other files? Wouldn't setting up a
>> different repo for each set of files be difficult to manage?
>
> The write part is easy. Just setup hooks to reject updates on those
> files (however, notice the offline nature of git, people may commit
> locally and the push later, you may need to check commit time on your
> hooks).
>
> The reading part is hard, especially the way you put it ("at a time").
> The only way I can think of is to not download those objects and try
> to fetch from central repo every time the objects are read,
> essentially turn git into a central scm again. Git does not support
> this and may never do unless there's an reasonable use case.
>
> So I have to ask, why do you do it this way? Once you give read-access
> to a developer, he/she can always save the files somewhere, revoking
> read access later on would be useless.That's true. I hope to be able to give different developers access to different parts of the code. I really don't know if this will work. I just don't want my code to be stolen and I'm trying to find some way to prevent that from happening.
- Grant