Karl Fogel wrote:
>"Darryl Melander" <djmelan@sandia.gov> writes:
>
>
>>The bottom line for me is that my project will not be able to use Subversion
>>until remote access is possible with an access protocol other than ra_local
>>and ra_dav. I have other concerns as well, but this is an absolute
>>show-stopper for my organization. I believe that the tight coupling between
>>web server and repository is a HUGE negative, one that will allow CVS to
>>retain the upperhand for many (if not most) of those currently hosting a CVS
>>repository.
>>
>>
>
>You don't have to run Subversion's web server on port 80. You can
>have your usual web server running on port 80, and Subversion on some
>other port (we do this on http://www.red-bean.com:8080/, for example).
>...
>
>Is there some other reason (besides the port interference non-issue)
>why this is a showstopper for you?
>
Not the original poster, but my work address also ends in .gov, and my
answer is a definite "yes."
The fundamental reason is that in my work environment, rootless users
(most of us), do not open ports. Period. We use the ones that are
given to us (ssh, mostly), and don't have 6 months for the
cyber-security review team to get to our proposal for running a *new
server* (gasp!) on our machine, then 2 months for getting the sysadmin
to set up the server for us and open the port, knowing that if he makes
a mistake he might lose his job.
This is the subversion's achilles heel for those of us who work in
security minded environments (and there are a hell of a lot of us!). If
you can put it through ssh, we can probably use it. Until then, we're
probably stuck, or at least have a huge barrier to entry.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 05:14:28 2002