On 12/17/2012 03:11 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.12.2012 20:01, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 01:05 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 17.12.2012 15:03, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/2012 05:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>>> On 17.12.2012 09:47, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>>>>> I think we should suppress this warning on Windows when the CryptoAPI
>>>>>> encryption is enabled (read: +- always) to avoid unneeded user questions.
>>>>> I rather think we should disable plaintext password storage by default,
>>>>> I don't care about Windows, and let people enable it explicitly.
>>>> May I assume you mean "runtime-disable", not "compile-time-disable"?
>>> Yes, of course. Here's the thing, though: the define in
>>> svn_private_config.h doesn't actually do what it says. For example, if
>>> someone should define it on Windows, it would disable storing passwords
>>> on disk, even though they're (almost) always encrypted on that platform.
>> But ... why would someone define it on Windows, though? And why do I/you/we
>> care if folks gets unexplained behavior when they go around setting #defines
>> without understanding them? There's a reason why that #define isn't
>> templated in svn_private_config.hw, after all.
> Quite right. I'm not really all that worried about Windows. But, ISTR
> that someone (you?) was doing some work on getting the on-disk files
> encrypted on other platforms, too. Would that effort supersede this
> config option?
Yes, I am working on a master-passphrase-based disk encryption feature.
(Or, at least, I was, before trying to get 1.8 out of the door in a
reasonable amount of time became a priority). The effort would not
necessarily supercede the configuration option, though.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2012-12-17 21:29:09 CET