[closed] Source code protection - again
![]()
David Davies (206●1●27●13)
| asked Dec 30 '09, 7:40 a.m.
closed Apr 04 '23, 5:30 a.m. by David Honey (1.8k●1●7)
Hi guys
I'm sure this has probably been done to death but we don't seem to be able to get it doing what we want. I have created a project which we want to hold all of our source code for multiple projects. I have created multiple teams all with the parent set to the project. Each component in this project has a team owner ( the teams are not nested ). Now, if I add a user to a team I want it so they can ONLY see the components that are owned by that team. What appears to be happening is that they can see any components in that project. I have looked though the video and can't see what I have missed. Any ideas? Many thanks David |
The question has been closed for the following reason: "Other" by davidhoney Apr 04 '23, 5:30 a.m.
4 answers
![]()
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35)
| answered Dec 30 '09, 11:08 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Read access is controlled by project area, not by team area (to help
remember this, note that you can only specify read access information at the project area level, not at the team area level). So you'll have to create a "component access control" project area for each team. Note that these project areas are only used to define the access control for the set of components that belong to that team ... you don't create work items or plans in those project areas. There is one unfortunate characteristic of the current approach for component access control ... you have to define your team members twice .... once in the "planning" project area for that team, and then again in the "component access control" project area for that team. I've submitted enhancement request 102270 asking that the team membership of one project area be available for use when specifying the access control list of another project area. Cheers, Geoff daviesd wrote: Hi guys |
![]()
David Davies (206●1●27●13)
| answered Dec 30 '09, 3:26 p.m.
edited Mar 29 '23, 5:47 a.m. by Lokesh Kalal (11●1) Thanks Geoff.
|
![]()
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35)
| answered Dec 31 '09, 12:23 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER edited Mar 29 '23, 5:47 a.m. by Lokesh Kalal (11●1) Yes, that would significantly simplify defining access control for
Thanks Geoff. |
![]()
Hi Geoff
Thanks for your help on this - hopefully they will make a future release. Cheers David |