great idea by Robin Smidsrød: since users are already capable of
authenticating themselves to gitolite via ssh keys, use that to let them
set or change their own HTTP passwords (ie, run the "htpasswd" command
with the correct parameters on behalf of the "git" user on the server)
code, rc para, and documentation. In fact everything except... ahem...
testing ;-)
and while we're about it, we also reorganised the way these helper
commands (including the venerable "info" are called)
This is actually a pretty big deal, and I am seriously starting wonder
if calling this "gito*lite*" is justified anymore.
Anyway, in for a penny, in for a pound...
This patch implements a generic way to allow access control for external
commands, as long as they are invoked via ssh and present a server-side
command that contains enough information to make an access control
decision.
The first (and only, so far) such command implemented is rsync.
Please read the changes in this commit (at least the ones in conf/ and
doc/) carefully.
It's not clear whether $projectroot has or does not have a trailing
slash. Current code assumes it does, but we need to cater for it not
having one also. Otherwise the final reponame ends up with a leading
slash, once $projectroot has been stripped from the beginning of the
full repo path.
Gitolite allows you to restrict changes by file/dir name. The syntax
for this used "PATH/" as a prefix to denote such file/dir patterns.
This has now been changed to "NAME/" because PATH is potentially
confusing.
While this is technically a backward-incompatible change, the feature
itself was hitherto undocumented, and only a few people were using it,
so I guess it's not that bad...
Also added documentation now.
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.
@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 :)
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.
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)
- added comments to easy install to help do it manually
- README: some stuff moved to tips doc, brief summary of extras
(over gitosis) added
- INSTALL: major revamp, easy install and manual install,
much shorter and much more readable!
plus other docs changed as needed, and updated the tips doc to roll in
some details from "update.mkd" in the "ml" branch
- detect/warn git version < 1.6.2
- create documentation with details on client-side workaround
- change the "git init --bare" to (older) "git --bare init", since the old
syntax still works anyway
