Why not make /tmp-public and /tmp-private?
Leave /tmp alone. Have all new branches made in one of the two new
directories, and as /tmp branches are slowly whacked, we can
(eventually) get rid of /tmp.
Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> I thought about both of those (/tmp/private and /tmp/public), but
> couldn't think of a way to make them work.
> 1. If we do /tmp/private, we have to svn mv all the existing trees there
> which will annoy the developers (but is not a deal-breaker) and make
> /tmp publicly readable. But that makes the history of all the private
> branches public.
> 2. If we do /tmp/public, I'm not quite sure how to setup the perms in SH
> to do that - if we setup /tmp to be 'no read access' for * and
> /tmp/public to have 'read access' for *, will a non authenticated user
> be able to reach /tmp/private?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Barrett [mailto:bbarrett_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Public tmp branches
> ugh, sorry, I've been busy this week and didn't see a timeout, so a
> response got delayed.
> I really don't like this format. public doesn't have any meaning to
> it (tmp suggests, well, it's temporary). I'd rather have /tmp/ and /
> tmp/private or something like that. Or /tmp/ and /tmp/public/.
> Either way :/.
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > I didn't really put this in RFC format with a timeout, but no one
> > objected, so I have created:
> > http://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/ompi/public
> > Developers should feel free to use this tree for public temporary
> > branches. Specifically:
> > - use /tmp if your branch is intended to be private
> > - use /public if your branch is intended to be public
> > Enjoy.
> > On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >> Right now all branches under /tmp are private to the OMPI core group
> >> (e.g., to allow unpublished academic work). However, there are
> >> definitely cases where it would be useful to allow public branches
> >> when there's development work that is public but not yet ready for
> >> the trunk. Periodically, we go an assign individual permissions to /
> >> tmp branches (like I just did to /tmp/vt-integration), but it would
> >> be easier if we had a separate tree for public "tmp" branches.
> >> Would anyone have an objection if I added /public (or any better name
> >> that someone can think of) for tmp-style branches, but that are open
> >> for read-only access to the public?
> >> --
> >> Jeff Squyres
> >> Cisco Systems
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> devel mailing list
> >> devel_at_[hidden]
> >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> > --
> > Jeff Squyres
> > Cisco Systems
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel_at_[hidden]
> > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list