cvs setup, sourceforge was (Re: [Bf-committers] CVS commit: CVSROOT avail)
Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:44:47 +0000 (GMT)
--- Hans Lambermont <email@example.com>
wrote: > Unprivileged user wrote:
> > nobody 2002/10/29 23:31:58 CET
> > Modified files:
> > . avail
> > Log:
> > bah writers/pserver stuff conflicts with avail
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.2 +2 -2 CVSROOT/avail
> These are the 'commit emails'. I think we need to
> make real accounts for
> all committers, so that the names are inserted
> right. For now I remapped
> everyone with write-access to the 'nobody' user, but
> that has this
> unforeseen side effect. If anyone knows how to solve
> this problem
> *without* the need for creating full accounts I'm
> very interested in it.
There is a way with ssh(at with least openssh) to
limit what the user can do once logged in.
You put a command=cvs. We use it at work for people
we don't quite trust :) You also set their shell to
Each developer needs to create a public/private key to
The advantage of this method is that you can set
permissions on certain folders/files so that only
certain people can read/write/whatever.
eg, you could set up a seperate repository for people
writing plugins, a seperate one for the main blender
For more information on this see the man pages, and
search google.com, and google groups for 'command=cvs
If you need help with setting this up, I'd be glad to
Or of course you could just use sourceforge. What is
the problem with doing this? I can only see
advantages. Their system is set up and working. It
is understood allready by a large number of open
source developers. If sourceforge isn't free enough,
then savanna is almost as good.
With sourceforge, you can just use single parts of it.
eg you could just use cvs.
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts