Re: git, monorepos, and access control

["brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:01:05PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> You could work around that by teaching the server to refuse to use "X"
> in any way when the client does not have the right permissions. But:
> 
>   - that's just one example; there are probably a number of such leaks
> 
>   - you're fighting an uphill battle against the way Git is implemented;
>     there's no single point to enforce this kind of segmentation
> 
> The model that fits more naturally with how Git is implemented would be
> to use submodules. There you leak the hash of the commit from the
> private submodule, but that's probably obscure enough (and if you're
> really worried, you can add a random nonce to the commit messages in the
> submodule to make their hashes unguessable).

I tend to agree that submodules are the way to go here over a monorepo.
Not only do you have much better access control opportunities, in
general, smaller repositories are going to perform better and be easier
to work with than monorepos. While VFS for Git is a great technology,
using a set of smaller repositories is going to outperform it every
time, both on developer machines, and on your source code hosting
platform.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 868 bytes --]