Guten Tag Philip Prindeville,
am Montag, 27. Dezember 2010 um 22:28 schrieben Sie:
> In our case, we're setting up a secured source repository inside
> our network, for outside access (via port-forwarding on our gateway).
In this scenario and if security is this important for you, then why
not ju
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 01:28:34PM -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> On 12/27/10 11:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >On Dec 24, 2010, at 23:34, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> >
> >>Unfortunately, the documentation and utilities in a few places are less
> >>clear than they could be when discussing repos
On 12/28/10 3:44 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 01:28:34PM -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 12/27/10 11:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Dec 24, 2010, at 23:34, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Unfortunately, the documentation and utilities in a few places are less clear
than th
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 08:58:43AM -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> On 12/28/10 3:44 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >The important bit about security is that admins understand how to configure
> >the application they're setting up. They can then configure it securely.
> >I suppose your real concern
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> On 12/28/10 3:44 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 01:28:34PM -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/27/10 11:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Dec 24, 2010, at 23:34, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:11:47PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> As Stefan pointes out elsewhere, svnserve will run without an
> svnserve.conf. Perhaps it *shouldn't*, and the default svnserve.conf
> should be published as svnserve.conf.tmpl? That would force manual
> enabling of a service that
On 12/28/10 11:11 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Disabled entirely would be better, and safer, than empty. Subversion's
security models have historically been very lax. This is inherited
from its origins in CVS, and the attitude that "if you don't trust
your machine, you shouldn't be using it!!!".
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/28/10 11:11 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>> Disabled entirely would be better, and safer, than empty. Subversion's
>> security models have historically been very lax. This is inherited
>> from its origins in CVS, and the attitude that
On 12/28/10 1:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
But better client and server access control is also hardly "unheard
of". Plenty of more modern tools take client and server security far
more seriously, including cross-platform source control tools.
Bitkeeper, git, Perforce, and mercurial all leap t
2010/12/28 Thorsten Schöning
> Guten Tag Philip Prindeville,
> am Montag, 27. Dezember 2010 um 22:28 schrieben Sie:
>
> > In our case, we're setting up a secured source repository inside
> > our network, for outside access (via port-forwarding on our gateway).
>
> In this scenario and if security
10 matches
Mail list logo
