On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:17, Derek Robert Price wrote: > ATD Hubbard, John wrote: > > > Failing to provide these sorts of options could conceivably result in > > people trafficking lot of semi-standard, hacked versions of cvs that > > don't encroach upon their privacy by default. Having seen public > > reaction to some similar mechanism that other vendors built into some > > of their products, my feeling is that this type of client behavior > > must be treated in a very careful sort of way, to avoid losing users. > >
My personal solution was to add an optional protocol and trigger to information via a new CVSROOT/config option in the same way that SystemAuth and other such options are handled. A protocol for version info would also be a nice to have in the core dist. I have template code to do this at work, simply because we have a large heterogeneous environment and support can be difficult. I also have no problem with servers denying access to unverified clients in this case. > I'm also talking about some pretty simple information. Client name & > version perhaps. Platform I can see as invasion of privacy. > > As near as I know, all the web browsers send a client name and version > as part of the HTTP protocol. I haven't heard any objections to that. > > Derek > > -- > *8^) > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>! > -- > I will not show off. > I will not show off. > I will not show off... > > - Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_ _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs