From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Corey <corey@bitworthy.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 18:16:22 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.34-rc4; KDE/4.4.3; i686; ; )
References: <46c5b0cdfeddd4ffbe49588fc296ae20@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <46c5b0cdfeddd4ffbe49588fc296ae20@kw.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201005151816.22124.corey@bitworthy.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] fscons users -r/-w <file> vs. editing /adm/users
	manually
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2311bae6-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Saturday 15 May 2010 5:55:33 erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Sat May 15 19:56:50 EDT 2010, corey@bitworthy.net wrote:
> > If one wants to remove an existing user from the fossil file server,
> > is it perfectly ok to simply edit /adm/users, as the hostowner user,
> > directly?  Or is it considered better practice to issue users -r/-w via
> > fossilcons? Or is there effectively no real difference?
>
> if you are using venti and thus have a dump (snapshots), i would
> recommend against removing users since removing users can make
> the dump unintelligible.  at coraid, we just disable auth.
>

Ack - I should have mentioned:  fossil only, no venti - no snapshots.

So, assuming a non-venti server: when removing users from the fossil
filesystem, there's no effective difference whether I do so by manually
editing /adm/users versus fscons: users -r/-w [file] ?

I'm just slowly trying to accumulate "best practices" for my documentation
efforts.