22 messages in com.perforce.perforce-userAnonymous access to Perforce?
FromSent OnAttachments
John...@non.net23 Jun 1999 18:13 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com23 Jun 1999 18:51 
Scot...@seaslug.org23 Jun 1999 19:36 
Kent...@watsen.net23 Jun 1999 20:28 
Kent...@watsen.net23 Jun 1999 21:54 
Scot...@seaslug.org23 Jun 1999 22:08 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com23 Jun 1999 22:19 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com23 Jun 1999 22:19 
John...@non.net23 Jun 1999 23:05 
Ross...@mecalc.co.za24 Jun 1999 08:22 
John...@non.net24 Jun 1999 08:32 
Davi...@ctxuk.citrix.com25 Jun 1999 03:42 
Jeff...@nextcard.com29 Jun 1999 13:21 
Russ...@symantec.com29 Jun 1999 13:32 
Russ...@symantec.com29 Jun 1999 13:36 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com29 Jun 1999 14:08 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com29 Jun 1999 14:08 
Jeff...@nextcard.com29 Jun 1999 15:57 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com29 Jun 1999 16:15 
Kend...@scitechsoft.com29 Jun 1999 16:15 
Ross...@mecalc.co.za30 Jun 1999 01:38 
Mike...@phone.net30 Jun 1999 02:05 
Subject:Anonymous access to Perforce?
From:John...@non.net (John@non.net)
Date:06/23/1999 11:05:53 PM
List:com.perforce.perforce-user

"Kendall" == Kendall Bennett <KendallB at scitechsoft.com> writes:

Scott Blachowicz <Scott.Blachowicz at seaslug.org> writes:

[...]

But, 'p4 sync' is a REAL nice way for us "lurkers" to stay up to date with the sources.

Yeah, and it's also a hassle for people to get setup with, learn to use, etc. if all they really want is bleeding-edge access to the development tree.

[...]

One thing that worries me about a single anonymous user with multiple clients, is that it would be very easy for someone else to get in and screw up another users client space since there is no protection.

Uncontrolled, anonymous access is, IMHO, patently silly. People are either active contributors to development or they are lurkers -- keep separate things separate but make lurker access simple and keep control of active access.

Take care, John