On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:33:03AM +0600, Катаргин Алексей wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Sperling
> >The patch looks technically correct, but I don't understand why it is
> >needed. Can you explain why it is needed?
> >It sounds to me as if you'd like to forward authentication requests
> >from SASL to PAM. Why can't you achieve this by configuring SASL
> >appropriately, without changing svn?
> > (Note: I don't know much about SASL).
> It's used to set access rights per each repository via chain sasl->pam
Can you provide more details? What problem are you trying to solve?
I know virtually *nothing* about SASL and PAM. In fact, no active developers
of svn know about SASL (the person who added SASL support isn't active
anymore). That's why your patch hasn't been looked at so far. I'm tyring
to review it, but I lack the necessary knowledge to do so. You'll have
to teach me to understand the purpose of your patch.
So, based on me knowing nothing at all, please explain:
- your SASL and PAM setup
- what problem existed in your SASL/PAM setup that prompted you
to write the patch
- why you think the patch is the right way to fix this problem
- can you think of any alternative approaches of fixing this problem?
It needs more than one sentence to explain all this, sorry.
But we'll need your help to understand your contribution.
Otherwise it will likely end up not being committed until someone
who knows SASL can explain to us why your patch is a good idea,
or until I found enough time to learn enough about SASL and PAM
so I can make my own judgement.
Received on 2010-04-12 18:05:33 CEST