| 1 |
On Oct 1, 2011 7:26 AM, "Michael Orlitzky" <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/30/2011 07:59 PM, Grant wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Thanks for that. I haven't thought it all the way through, but if |
| 6 |
> > Unix ownership and permissions aren't granular enough and subversion's |
| 7 |
> > path-based authorization won't work, I will need to use ACLs. I think |
| 8 |
> > both subversion's path-based authorization and Unix |
| 9 |
> > ownership/permissions would be simpler to implement and maintain than |
| 10 |
> > ACLs so I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> ACLs really aren't as bad as they look at first. They work just like |
| 14 |
> permissions on Windows, which are one of the few things it does right. |
| 15 |
> My example is made much more difficult because /var/www contains |
| 16 |
> directories writable by other customers. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I know *my* config.php files are chgrp apache and chmod 660, but I don't |
| 19 |
> expect everyone else to be so careful (and they shouldn't have to be). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If you are going to go the version control route, I would suggest |
| 22 |
> setting up a new repository with only the code that he will be working |
| 23 |
> on. You can use a post-update script (or whatever svn calls them) on the |
| 24 |
> server to pull his code into production. He doesn't need to access the |
| 25 |
> files directly. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
+1 on production server pulling from $VCS. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm currently assisting a friend of mine, who's the CEO of a business |
| 31 |
incubator. In order to force them startups to use the $VCS, we require them |
| 32 |
to first commit their codes to the $VCS, then have a script pull the newest |
| 33 |
version into production. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
At first, they whined. Oh, how they whined! But after the $VCS saved their |
| 36 |
bacons many times, now they're firm believers in version control :-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Rgds, |
Archives