[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Bug? FSFS revision control

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-01-26 23:25:01 CET

On Jan 26, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Dassi, Nasser wrote:

> [This email has 3 replies in 1.]

With all due respect, I think you've stepped off the deep end here.

Critical data is saved in a repository, which means storing in files.
And *nothing* can protect these files from ignorant programs or
malicious hackers except the operating system's filesystem permissions.

It doesn't matter if the data is stored in fsfs revision files, bdb
tables, or base-17-encoded astrological star charts. Obscurity is
*not* security. Either the OS file perms allow the data to be mucked
with, or it doesn't.

Subversion is not "fragile"... no more so than any other system. Go
change 3 random bytes in an RCS or SCCS file and see what happens. Or
even in a clearcase VOB, if you can access the database directly.

It's also absurd to say that any storage mechanism is "flawed" because
it's not self-healing. Like any database, there's an underlying
assumption that the OS will provide accurate, reliable storage.
Subversion is not self-aware, self-healing, nor should it be used to
fly airplanes. Worried about the repository data getting corrupted?
Manage the permissions correctly, and make backups. It's the same
thing any other database requires.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 27 01:09:44 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.