Walter, Jan writes: > > I think we need to differentiate between "really bullet-proof security" and > "reasonable security" - after all, security is also there to protect users > from themselves, with no malicious intent required. I would also fathom that > this is the cause of most data loss.
I agree. However, I think that CVS's normal configurations are sufficient to provide the latter kind of security and any further efforts to provide more security are misguided and probably a waste of time. Having the repository owned by a single user, for example, only protects against someone accidentally mucking about with the files there, a situation which I've never heard tell of. It's easily subverted with only the slightest of malicious intent, so is it really worth doing? Particularly since doing so removes all traceability, should some have such malicious intent. -Larry Jones Temporary insanity! That's all it was! -- Calvin _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs