I think this discussion has hit a wall, but I'll answer these points anyway. But I'm no longer pushing for such a feature to be included, because of the obvious reluctance of so many, so we can let this discussion drift away..
Greg Woods wrote: > If you're happy without real security then why don't you just > move your repository over to M$-NT and run CVSNT? Cost? Utility? Stability? (And besides, is it your contention that Linux filesystem security is "real" security? All I have to do is break into the machine as root using one of the many unpatched vulnerabilities, and the whole repository is mine..) NT Server costs $$$. Besides, I don't like NT Server very much anyway as a server - a Linux server is far more versatile and solid. In fact, we did start off using CVSNT on an NT box, and after several dozen blue screens and one repository corruption, I gave up on the stupid thing. On the other hand, I can't very well go up to, say, the CIO and tell them that I want the whole company to ditch Microsoft and implement a whole new Grand Unified Authentication and Authorization mechanism across the company. I could, if I wanted to make it my personal full-time evangelism and crusade, but I have to live within real-life constraints. Look, I understand where you come from regarding security, and grafting on security mechanisms on top of each other. On the other hand, what most of us are looking for here are not absolute, drop-dead, guaranteed security, but a mere semblance of an approximation of authorization walls. In most of our environments, we don't have gangs of hostile hackers wandering around looking for things to break into. These are more like little doorlocks that exist merely as an indication to law-abiding employees that the contents are not for them. Certainly there is no intention to make the protection criminal-proof, because that would be enormously difficult. I'm not making my repository public to Joe Random from Little Rock, AK, and I'm not trying to make my repository more secure than my company's overall IT infrastructure. I understand that implementing such a feature may lead someone else to think that that would make CVS secure enough to put it on a public internet with national secrets protected only by this mechanism, but that could be addressed by a warning or something.. For example, pserver isn't really (or even remotely) secure either, and it's there for good or bad, because there's such an *overwhelming* demand and need for it. I know you'd like to rip it out and throw it away, but you'll never hear the end of the screaming if you did so. Still, I hear the reluctance from the faithful, so I'll no longer push for this feature, anyway.. I'll still look to try to back-port non-security-related features where it would be easy and useful.. -- Shankar. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs