Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
OAuth Improvements (github.com/blog)
66 points by llambda on July 12, 2013 | hide | past | favorite | 8 comments



Thank you GitHub!!

We lose so many users due to the permissions we need at https://circleci.com, this is going to be awesome!


Oh, if you want to see what this looks like in practice: https://github.com/login/oauth/authorize?client_id=78a2ba87f...

(Obviously, if you accept this, you'd be giving CircleCI access to your repos).


Oh, you can play around with that URL and the scopes too to see how the permissions are affected. Eg change "user" to "user:email". See http://developer.github.com/v3/oauth/#scopes for a list of all the scopes.


Why do you need "write access" to my "private email" (I don't even understand what does it mean — can you change e-mail address I use to log in to GitHub!?)


GitHub's "scopes" (permissions, see http://developer.github.com/v3/oauth/#scopes) are very coarse-grained. So in this case we need to occasionally (via opt-in) add an SSH key to your account, but that permission isn't covered by a fine-leveled scope, so we need the coarse level "user" scope.

We discuss it in some more detail here: https://circleci.com/docs/github-permissions


Definitely for this. Clearer permissions are only a good thing.

(good timing too, as I'm using GitHub's OAuth flow for a small project!)


Would be nice if they made the permissions more fine grained. For example split the 'Public repositories and organizations': instead of granting access to all public repos, grant access to only specific repositories.


Yes indeed. CircleCI needs read-access to the repos you need to test, and the ability to add a read-only SSH key to those repos.

Unfortunately, the only way to get that is to ask for read- and write-access to all private repos, which makes nobody happy (see http://developer.github.com/v3/oauth/#scopes for the actual options).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: