deac/gitolite
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity

gerrit doc updates following Shawn's email

Browse source 
(git ml, subject line "bugs in gitosis")
This commit is contained in:
Sitaram Chamarty 2010-10-29 16:05:53 +05:30
parent 6386d8ca2f
commit 04d68fe3e9
1 changed files with 13 additions and 16 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

29
contrib/gerrit.mkd
View file

@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ useful to compare gitolite with just what is in the "access-control.html" in
the gerrit war file. Or see [this][gdac]. [...and stop sniggering at the the gerrit war file. Or see [this][gdac]. [...and stop sniggering at the
"svn" in the link dammit!] "svn" in the link dammit!]
Note that I don't necessarily list something that both tools have. (For
example, per-user branches denoted by `/USER/` in gitolite and `$(username)`
in gerrit, or being able to distinguish between creating a branch and pushing
to an already created one, etc).
[gdac]: http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.1.2/access-control.html [gdac]: http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.1.2/access-control.html
[jwzq]: http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247 [jwzq]: http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247
@ -57,14 +62,10 @@ of "Administrators".
**Project ACLs**: first, let's remember (again) that we don't have any of the code **Project ACLs**: first, let's remember (again) that we don't have any of the code
review stuff :) review stuff :)
* **Reference-level access controls** make no mention of regexes. I'm not * This is a subjective point, but gerrit doesn't give permissions to
[JWZ][jwzq], and I strongly consider regexes a plus point :) individual users, only groups. People who have several small projects
(only one QA, one integrator, etc.), would have to create lots of 1-man
* They also make no mention of giving permissions to individual users, only groups, which could be cumbersome.
groups. If this is true, it would be a little cumbersome when managing
many small projects -- projects where you have only one QA, one
integrator, etc., would end up making many 1-man groups. [If anyone who's
used gerrit can correct me on this I'd appreciate it].
* **Evaluation** order and priority of access control rules are different. * **Evaluation** order and priority of access control rules are different.
Gerrit goes by specificity, gitolite goes by sequence. It shouldn't Gerrit goes by specificity, gitolite goes by sequence. It shouldn't
@ -102,13 +103,8 @@ review stuff :)
* gitolite doesnt do anything special to signed or annotated tags * gitolite doesnt do anything special to signed or annotated tags
* gitolite always allows creating a branch. The only way to prevent that is * Force push is the same as delete by default. However, gitolite can now
to list out allowed branches explicitly (make sure you end the refex with allow these two separately if that's how you need it.
a `$`!).
* Force push is the same as delete: historically (and by default, even now)
gitolite does the same . However, I've only recently (and somewhat
reluctantly) changed gitolite to allow treating these two separately.
Of course, direct pushing clashes with code review, and gerrit recommends Of course, direct pushing clashes with code review, and gerrit recommends
that if you want code review you should not use this feature. [Normal that if you want code review you should not use this feature. [Normal
@ -120,6 +116,7 @@ review stuff :)
notion of this. Hmm... I smell another feature in the future :) notion of this. Hmm... I smell another feature in the future :)
The rest of it is in areas that the two tools have no overlap on (again, code The rest of it is in areas that the two tools have no overlap on (again, code
review being the main thing). review being the main thing), or, as I said at the top, features that both
tools have.
[gitlog1]: http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2010-09-17#l2710 [gitlog1]: http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=2010-09-17#l2710