-
Suggestion
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
None
One area that I am continually wanting is some fine grained access into branch management. For instance our workflow consists of a developer creating a branch from master and pushing the topic, bug or feature branch upstream. When we go to release to each different environment we have specialty branches (develop, qa and master) which only a few people should have write access to but anyone can read.
I would like to see some finer grained permissions on who can utilize these different branches to prevent unauthorized writes. What we currently do is manage this in github and we have them issue pull requests then merge the topic branches upstream. Following that we merge them into the specialty branches since they do not have permissions to the upstream repository.
- is duplicated by
-
- Closed
- is related to
-
BSERV-2861 Pre-receive hooks don't run when merging a pull-request
-
- Closed
-
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
- relates to
-
- Closed
-
- Closed
-
- Gathering Interest
| Form Name | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[BSERV-2481] Branch Permissions
Steve Baker
added a comment - Seb & Team - Thank you. Must feel pretty damn good to check this one off the list. We'll be giving it a look in the next 24 hours.
Steve Baker
added a comment - Seb & Team - Thank you. Must feel pretty damn good to check this one off the list. We'll be giving it a look in the next 24 hours. Hi all,
Stash 2.0 has been released with support for branch permissions. We hope you find it useful!
We'll be continuing to add more permissions around pushing/removing refs in upcoming releases of Stash.
Thanks for your patience,
Seb
Matthew Korich
added a comment - We are on the fence for a 100 user license for this ONE feature as well. I can't buy Stash until we have branches protected. Put this cake in the oven already! 
Matthew Korich
added a comment - We are on the fence for a 100 user license for this ONE feature as well. I can't buy Stash until we have branches protected. Put this cake in the oven already! arex1337, we are actively working on a solution for branch permissions and hopefully we'll have something out very soon. Stay tuned.
T. Alexander Lystad
added a comment - When do you plan do introduce this? In any corporate environment this is important. Large projects, when you don't want to trust everyone (perhaps hundreds of developers) with a specific branch. We are on the fence about buying Stash 500 Users License because of this.
T. Alexander Lystad
added a comment - When do you plan do introduce this? In any corporate environment this is important. Large projects, when you don't want to trust everyone (perhaps hundreds of developers) with a specific branch. We are on the fence about buying Stash 500 Users License because of this. I originally posted this on STASH-2482 but I believe this is the correct place for this posting:
Hi,
+++1 for a formal permissions model at branch level.
Certainly agree with many comments above and have to emphasize that the corporate world isn't going to accept a social approach to control of blessed branches.
I wouldn't really mind if the control is implemented by way of finer-grained repository permissions at branch level or the facility to pull to a blessed repository from a development one. First option would probably be better as it doesn't require multiple hosted versions of the repository.
Great looking interface so far though, just hope one of these mechanisms can be included for 1.4.
Thanks,
Leigh Grealis
ClearvisionCM
Darshak Thakore
added a comment - Our typical use case requires permissions per directory and permissions per branch since we have situations when we want to let certain external users not be able to access certain parts of the repository and/or not be able to push to specific branches. Since git does not provide permissioning at the directory level, if both STASH-2481 and STASH-2643 are implemented, it would solve the problem since STASH-2481 will provide branch level permissions and STASH-2643 can provide repo level permissions. With that we can create a separate repo for content that we do not wish to share with all users.
Darshak Thakore
added a comment - Our typical use case requires permissions per directory and permissions per branch since we have situations when we want to let certain external users not be able to access certain parts of the repository and/or not be able to push to specific branches. Since git does not provide permissioning at the directory level, if both STASH-2481 and STASH-2643 are implemented, it would solve the problem since STASH-2481 will provide branch level permissions and STASH-2643 can provide repo level permissions. With that we can create a separate repo for content that we do not wish to share with all users. 
I created "STASH-2905: Support Personal Branches" for pattern matching branch names against the username and automatically granting privileges to these branches.