Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have to set up git for a development team. The team members must have different rights.

Some roles should have read rights only, some should be able to push but not to create new branches or tags. Only a selected group of people should be allowed to do merges. This are just some examples.

After all: Is there a way to set up fine grained access control for git? What would be a good software stack to do this?

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

if folks clone (read) a repository, they can branch / tag / merge etc all day long because its their clone now and you will never have any control over what they are doing with their files. the only thing you can control is who pushes stuff into your central repository (that you want to use as a dropin-replacement for subversion as it seems).

if you trust only person x or person y to be able to cleanly maintain the one central repository, then you should allow only these persons write access to the fold which contains the repository.

the 2 most popular approaches to (self)host writable git-repositories are:

to just allow read-access you can use git itself. also a good read:

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .