> Jonathan Lange wrote:
> > Jonathan Lange has proposed merging lp:~jml/bzr/allow-writes-change-84659
> into lp:bzr.
> >
> > Requested reviews:
> > bzr-core (bzr-core)
> >
> > This branch changes the 'serve' command to take --allow-anonymous-write-
> access instead of --allow-writes, which it deprecates.
> >
>
> So... I'm a bit iffy on this. For example when using "bzr+ssh" we do:
>
> ssh host bzr serve --inet --allow-writes --directory=/
>
> It doesn't really fit to do:
>
> ssh host bzr serve --inet --allow-anonymous-writes --directory=/
>
Agreed. I wonder if the mis-fit is all that bad.
> 1) It will break launchpad (until the changes are merged, and the ssh
> server updated to allow that string)
Well, the old option is still present & deprecated.
Also, pretty much every release of Bazaar breaks Launchpad :)
> 2) It *is* anonymous, except that you've already authenticated...
>
Yeah, this is also kind of unfortunate.
> I understand the desire behind being clear about it for "bzr serve" to
> bring up the http/bzr:// access. I just worry about some of the fallout.
>
> (I'm not blocking, just bringing up the discussion.)
> Jonathan Lange wrote: anonymous- write- anonymous- writes --directory=/
> > Jonathan Lange has proposed merging lp:~jml/bzr/allow-writes-change-84659
> into lp:bzr.
> >
> > Requested reviews:
> > bzr-core (bzr-core)
> >
> > This branch changes the 'serve' command to take --allow-
> access instead of --allow-writes, which it deprecates.
> >
>
> So... I'm a bit iffy on this. For example when using "bzr+ssh" we do:
>
> ssh host bzr serve --inet --allow-writes --directory=/
>
> It doesn't really fit to do:
>
> ssh host bzr serve --inet --allow-
>
Agreed. I wonder if the mis-fit is all that bad.
> 1) It will break launchpad (until the changes are merged, and the ssh
> server updated to allow that string)
Well, the old option is still present & deprecated.
Also, pretty much every release of Bazaar breaks Launchpad :)
> 2) It *is* anonymous, except that you've already authenticated...
>
Yeah, this is also kind of unfortunate.
> I understand the desire behind being clear about it for "bzr serve" to
> bring up the http/bzr:// access. I just worry about some of the fallout.
>
> (I'm not blocking, just bringing up the discussion.)
So where to from here?
jml