Ted Stern wrote:
> On 08 May 2009 14:46:40 -0700, webpost_at_tigris.org wrote:
>> You are correct, we primarily want to avoid the Expensive Bloated
>> Version Control System (tm).
>> Requirements that CVS and svn (and perhaps other open source
>> software) can meet but commercial products can not would be fine.
>> In the meantime I'll start bringing together some information on the
>> long term costs of using the other system. As a former site
>> administrator of the commercial system in question I am in an
>> especially good place to make that argument.
> Here are a couple of requirements I don't think "EBVCS" can handle,
> but it's possible to do it in OSS tools such as Subversion, Git,
> Mercurial, Bazaar, etc.:
> High security access from anywhere on the internet.
> You can set up a single account that is the only one that can view the
> Then you multiplex the account via its ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file.
> Documented for Subversion in
> (Trick #4)
> There are similar ssh server modes for other systems.
> This lets you access the code from anywhere with an ssh route to the
> I need svn+ssh access this way because
> 1) Third party source code license requirements require secure access.
> 2) Users/developers are nationwide and don't have local accounts.
> 3) It works from any OS that OpenSSH runs on :-).
> plus this bit of sugar:
> 4) With svnserve's --tunnel-user option, you can change the log into a
> human-readable name format. This is a welcome change from CVS
> because our login names are basically line noise. The name I
> convert to is the standard name email format, first.last
> (@company.com is assumed).
Or, use https with an apache configuration that requires a client
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-05-10 01:28:09 CEST