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?

-jms

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Brian Barrett [mailto:bbarrett@lanl.gov]
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 :/.

Brian


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 (e.g., to allow unpublished academic work).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@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel