we had usurped the email style syntax to separate multiple keys
belonging to the same person, like sitaram@desktop.pub and
sitaram@laptop.pub. If you have so many users that you need the full
email address to disambiguate some of them (or you want to do it for
just plain convenience), you couldn't.
This patch fixes that in a backward compatible way. See
doc/3-faq-tips-etc.mkd for details.
This feature has *no* warranty, and so no documentation. Not more than
this transcript anyway.
config file:
@prof = u1
@TAs = u2 u3
@students = u4 u5 u6
repo assignments/CREATER/a[0-9][0-9]
C = @students
RW+ = CREATER
RW = WRITERS @TAs
R = READERS @prof
session:
as user "u4":
# check your permissions
$ ssh git@server
PTY allocation request failed on channel 0
hello u4, the gitolite version here is v0.95-31-gbcb14ca
you have the following permissions:
C assignments/CREATER/a[0-9][0-9]
@ @ testing
Connection to localhost closed.
# autovivify repos for assignment 12 and 24
$ git clone git@server:assignments/u4/a12 a12
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/sitaram/t/a12/.git/
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/gitolite/repositories/assignments/u4/a12.git/
warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository.
$ git clone git@server:assignments/u4/a24 a24
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/sitaram/t/a24/.git/
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/gitolite/repositories/assignments/u4/a24.git/
warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository.
# check what repos you autovivified
$ ssh git@server expand assignments/u4/a[0-9][0-9]
(u4) assignments/u4/a12
(u4) assignments/u4/a24
as user "u5":
# check your basic permissions
$ ssh git@server
PTY allocation request failed on channel 0
hello u5, the gitolite version here is v0.95-31-gbcb14ca
you have the following permissions:
C assignments/CREATER/a[0-9][0-9]
@ @ testing
Connection to localhost closed.
# see if you have access to any of u4's repos
$ ssh git@server expand assignments/u4/a[0-9][0-9]
# (no output produced)
as user "u4":
# allow "u5" read access to assignment 12
# note you type in "R u5", hit enter, then hit Ctrl-D. Gitolite
# then produces a confirmation message starting "New perms are:"
$ ssh git@server setperms assignments/u4/a12
R u5
New perms are:
R u5
as user "u5":
# again see if you have access to any u4 repos
$ ssh git@server expand assignments/u4/a[0-9][0-9]
(u4) assignments/u4/a12
as user "u4":
# check what permissions you gave to assignment 12
$ ssh git@server getperms assignments/u4/a12
R u5
# add RW access to "u6" to assignment 12
# again, type 'em in, then hit Ctrl-D; and note each time you run
# this you're starting from scratch -- you can't "add to" the
# permissions. Deal with it...
$ ssh git@server setperms assignments/u4/a12
R u5
RW u6
New perms are:
R u5
RW u6
as user "u6":
# check what u4 stuff you have access to
$ ssh git@server expand assignments/u4/a[0-9][0-9]
(u4) assignments/u4/a12
- new_repo now takes a "creater" parameter; if given, this user is
recorded (in a file called "gl-creater") as the creater of the repo.
Only applicable to wildcards
- repo_rights reads "gl-creater" and "gl-perms" to tell you who
created it, and whether you (the $user) are in the list of READERS
or WRITERS
**NOTE** that the mechanism to create/update gl-perms has not been
written yet... (as of this commit)
- parse_acl takes 4 more arguments, all optional. The repo name we're
interested in (set by all except the access reporting function), and
the names to be interpolated as $creater, $readers, writers
- report_basic now knows about the "C" permission and shows it
- auth now autovivifies a repo if the user has "C" and it's a wildcard
match, or (the old case) the user has "W" and it's not a wildcard.
In the former case, the creater is also set
IMPLEMENTATION NOTES:
- the Dumper code now uses a custom hash key sort to make sure
$creater etc land up at the *end*
- a wee bit of duplication exists in the update hook; it borrows a
little code from parse_acl. I dont (yet) want to include all of
gitolite.pm for that little piece...
There's a new "C" permission to let someone *create* a repo that matches
the pattern given in the "repo ..." line. If the word CREATER appears
in the repo pattern, then that is forced to the actual user performing
that operation.
Something like this (we'll discuss READERS and WRITERS later):
repo personal/CREATER/.+
C = @staff
R [foo] = READERS
RW [bar] = WRITERS
...various other permissions as usual...
Delegation checking also changes quite a bit... see comments in code
Implementation: there's also a sneaky little trick we're playing here
with the dumped hash
@all in a deny rule doesnt work as it might look in the config file,
because @all rights are checked last. This is fine if you dont have any
DENYs (and so rule order doesn't matter), but with DENY it causes some
problems.
I never bothered to document it because I did not expect that any repo
that is "serious" enough to have deny rules *at all* should then allow
*any* kind of "write* access to @all. That's a very big contradiction
in terms of paranoia!
Translation: this will not be supported. Don't bother asking. You know
who you are :)
all of this is prep for the upcoming, all-new, chrome-plated,
"wildrepos" branch :)
- many variables go to gitolite.pm now, and are "our"d into the other
files as needed
- new functions parse_acl, report_basic to replace inlined code
consider:
repo = "some desc" # some comment
(and note that the regex for recognising a description expects that
dblquote to be the *last* character on the line)
part of comment on b78a720cee:
The only reason it's getting into master is because it looks cool!
I hate it when something that looks cool doesn't work right :(
creating a repo on gitolite-admin push is *needed* in order to get
descriptions and export-ok files to work right
Well, something even more outrageous than deny rules and path-based
limits came along, so I decided that "rebel" was actually quite
"conformist" in comparision ;-)
Jokes apart, the fact is that the access control rules, even when using
deny rules and path-limits, are still *auditable*. Which means it is
good enough for "corporate use".
[The stuff that I'm working on now takes away the auditability aspect --
individual users can "own" repos, create rules for themselves, etc.
So let's just say that is the basis of distinguishing "master" now.]
Summary: much as I did not want to use "excludes", I guess if we don't put the
code in "master" it's OK to at least *write* (and test) the code!
See the example config file for how to use it.
See "design choices" section in the "faq, tips, etc" document for how it
works.
the "create a new repo" code moves from compile to auth.
Only someone who has W access can create it, but he can do so even on a
"R" operation (like clone or ls-remote).
This is a pre-requisite for rebel's wildcard repos, where
autovivification is the only way you can create arbitrary repos matching
a pattern.
The only reason it's getting into master is because it looks cool!
----
OK that's a lie; the real reason is to keep the two branches as similar
as possible, though they;ve diverged quite a bit since the "only
one-line difference" days where "rebel" just meant "deny/exclude"
rules!)
writing the export_ok files and the gitweb project list are now
unconditional. They're idempotent anyway, and I doubt anyone cared
about all the fancy logic to detect and report *just* the new ones on
each compile.
This paves the way for gitweb ownership to be added later; that code was
becoming too complex otherwise...
- refuse to install to root
- when a pubkey is being used that was not freshly created by
ourselves, warn the user that this key can not be used to get shell
access to the server. Prevents some corner cases of people being
locked out...
Also, change the final message to be even more clear that this is all on
the workstation, not the server
I don't have a use for "@all" at all (pun not intended!) other than the
"testing" repo, but <teemu dot matilainen at iki dot fi> sent in a patch
to mark those repos with "R" and "W" in the permissions list, and I
started thinking about it.
This could actually be useful if we *differentiated* such access from
normal (explicit username) access. From the "corporate environment"
angle, it would be nice if a project manager could quickly check if any
of his projects have erroneously been made accessible by @all.
So what we do now is print "@" in the corresponding column if "@all" has
the corresponding access.
Also, when someone has access both as himself *and* via @all, we print
the "@"; printing the "R" or "W" would hide the "@", and wouldn't
correctly satisfy the use case described above.
- it appears that what we call $repo_base, gitweb already needs as
$projectroot
- allow read of repos defined as readable by @all
plus some minor declaration changes to make the sample code work as is
(thanks to teemu dot matilainen at iki dot fi)
We detect an upgrade situation by the presence of
$GL_ADMINDIR/conf/gitolite.conf -- if it exists, we reason, this is not
a fresh install. And if so we skip setting up PTA, and the initial
clone.
Well, turns out this is not always true. I've had a few cases where the
first install didn't go right, but left enough stuff in to make the
subsequent attempt think this is an upgrade.
[This mostly happened to me when I was testing the "oldgits" branch, and
also when I was making it work from msysgit I think... regardless of
why, it'd be good to fix]
So this changes the flow somewhat. Now the *only* difference between a
fresh install and an ugrade is the "initial_conf_key" function call (you
don't want to overwrite an existing conf file or keydir!)
I was trying to determine how close gitolite can come to the ACL model
of a proprietary product called codebeamer, and one of the items was how
to make a "role" (like QA_Lead) have different "members" in different
projects.
I then realised delegation already does that! Which is great, but as I
thought about it more, I realised... well, we'll let the in-code
comments speak for themselves :-)
Anyway, all it needed was a 1-line fix, luckily... <phew> And it would
have only affected people who use delegation.
- all $HOME/blah becomes "$HOME/blah" (bl**dy "Documents and Settings" crap)
- replace bash regex with perl, and in one case replace the check with
something else
- rsync changed to appropriate scp
- since we no longer insist on running from a specific directory, create
tmpgli dir *after* you cd to the right place
msysgit needs this on the initial clone, so it has to be on master. It
doesn't seem to "apply" the gitattributes if you checkout a different branch
later that has that setting; didn't investigate why
You can now add your own hooks into src/hooks/ and they get propagated
along with the update hook that is present there now. Please read the
new section in the admin document, and make sure you understand the
security implications of accidentally fiddling with the "update" script.
This also prompted a major rename spree of all the files to be
consistent, etc. Plus people said that the .sh and .pl suffixes should
be avoided (and I was feeling the same way). I've also been
inconsistent with that "gl-" prefix, so I cleaned that up, and the 00-
and 99- were also funny animals.
Time to get all this cleaned up before we get 1.0 :)
So these are the changes, in case you're looking at just the commit
message and not the diffstat:
src/pta-hook.sh -> src/ga-post-update-hook
src/conf-convert.pl -> src/gl-conf-convert
src/00-easy-install.sh -> src/gl-easy-install
src/99-emergency-addkey.sh -> src/gl-emergency-addkey
src/install.pl -> src/gl-install
src/update-hook.pl -> src/hooks/update
**upgrades no longer touch the config or the keydir**
When you first install gitolite, the easy install script has to do two
*distinct* things:
* install the software
* create and seed the gitolite-admin repo with a minimum config file
and the newly created pubkey
That's fine for an install, because nothing exists yet anyway.
Subsequent invocations of the script should only do the first task (so
that gitolite itself can be upgraded), and not attempt to fiddle with
the config file and pubkeys.
Unfortunately, until now I had not been separating these two activities
cleanly enough. For instance, the commit message for 8e47e01 said:
IMPORTANT: we assume that $admin_name remains the same in an upgrade
-- that's how we detect it is an upgrade! Change that name or his
pubkey, and you're toast!
Ouch!
So now I decided to clean things up. The "Usage" message tells you
clearly what to do for an upgrade.
Should have been like this from the beginning, but hey we got there
eventually :)
----
Code-wise, this is a major refactor of the easy install script. It uses
an old forgotten trick to get forward refs for bash functions ;-) and in
the process cleans up the flow quite a bit.
