kfogel@collab.net writes:
> Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > If usernames were cached, you'd just have to pass --username to svn
> > once, and that would end your problems. I think that's a better and more
> > general solution than having svn start asking for usernames in addition
> > to passwords.
> >
> > What do people think? Should we cache usernames with passwords? The
> > cache should be updated whenever the --username option is passed on the
> > command line, of course.
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense (in fact, I thought we were doing it!)
Long ago, Ben and I had the following exchange:
CMP> Then I thought, what if each provider's "save" function accepted a
CMP> flag that dictated the amount of data to save:
CMP>
CMP> 'none' - store no creds (but the system would call the function
CMP> anyway in case the provider needs to do some kind of cleanup or
CMP> admin task).
CMP>
CMP> 'username' - store a username only.
CMP>
CMP> 'all' - store all the creds.
CMP>
CMP> Then, we would change the config option to "auth-cache-type" (and the
CMP> valid values would be 'none', 'username', or 'all', defaulting to
CMP> 'username') and then change the command-line argument to
CMP> "--auth-cache-type" with the same three valid values.
BCS> +1 on this idea, provided it's not a flag to every single save_creds()
BCS> implementation. Instead, it should be a simple runtime parameter in
BCS> the auth_baton hash. It can either be specific to the wc provider, or
BCS> global to all providers that might want to care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 15 22:12:17 2003