Stop conflating the privilege to push changes to the admin repo with the
privilege to get a shell on the server.
Please read doc/6 carefully before upgrading to this version. Also
please ensure that the gitolite key is *not* your only means to get a
command line on the server
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.
"repo @all" can be used to set permissions or configurations for all
already defined repos. (A repository is defined if it has permission
rules associated, empty "repo" stanza or "@group=..." line is not enough.)
For example to allow a backup user to clone all repos:
# All other configuration
[...]
repo @all
R = backup
Signed-off-by: Teemu Matilainen <teemu.matilainen@reaktor.fi>
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.
- example config file is now all comments (should have been that way anyway)
- we detect if it is an upgrade and act accordingly (see below)
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!
why should just usernames have all the fun :) The "expand_userlist" function
is now "expand_list" and serves generically. The example conf has also been
updated correspondingly
(thanks to SethX for feedback)
- install: a little more verbosity in the mkdir
- install and example conf: some of the help text made more clear
- auth: error message on bad $cmd is now clearer, plus no perl-warnings to
confuse people
