There's a little context missing in what I wrote. I'm interested in
adopting idea of using "svn+foo" to mean "svn protocol over the foo
tunnel scheme". There would be a predefined tunnel scheme (the name
isn't clear, maybe "ssh" or "ext") which would use ssh or perhaps
$SVN_TUNNEL_AGENT if that's set, depending on the details. Other
schemes could be configured in. (We don't want to make "svn+foo" run
"foo" for any value of foo, or an svn:externals property could point
someone at the "svn+rm://-rf/home" repository; that would be no good at
all.)
On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 15:35, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> > Perhaps there's a middle ground... a tunnel scheme definition
> > could include the name of an environment variable which
> > overrides the default command name. And the predefined tunnel
> > scheme would respect SVN_TUNNEL_AGENT and default to "ssh" if
> > that's not defined. (The predefined scheme might be called
> > something more generic like "ext" because of that, a la CVS's
> > :ext: method, or perhaps we'd still call it "ssh"; no strong
> > opinion there.)
>
> If i understand correctly, this means svn://foo/bar/ and
> svn+ext://foo/bar/ are identical, just as :ext:foo:/bar and
> foo:/bar are identical to CVS.
No, I think if we go to "svn+foo", then svn://foo/bar would always use
the ra_svn protocol over TCP, just like :pserver:blah in CVS.
> I'm not sure i like this. I certainly don't object to it since
> it solves my complaint, but i don't see what the extra complexity
> buys.
I think it would make the checkout dialog for a GUI client more natural.
And it would mean that no client configuration of any kind (environment
variable or config-file editing) would be necessary to do ssh-tunneled
checkouts. Just "svn+ssh://..." and go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 22 21:44:43 2003