On 19-Oct-05, at 4:02 PM, Gale, David wrote:
> Scott Palmer wrote:
>
>> On 19-Oct-05, at 11:50 AM, Reite Karl J wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>
>>> I then think I will try to use ssh and tunelling.
>>>
>>
>> Why? If you are on the same LAN and the users already have read/write
>> access to the repository directory, then you don't even need a server
>> at all if you don't want one. Though I think it is probably better
>> in the long run to use a server. svnserve would work fine. What
>> purpose would the SSH tunnel serve?
>>
>
> Well, if everyone's got a login account on the server, using svn+ssh
> allows him to avoid creating new accounts.
I don't follow. What new accounts? I use svnserve on a LAN and
other than setting up the r/w permissions for svnserve, there was no
need to create any additional accounts. It just seems that in a LAN
environment the encryption is not likely necessary.
When I work remotely I just make a SSH tunnel to the LAN anyway and
still use the svn:// protocol for Subversion. That way my laptop's
working copies work when I'm home or at work on the LAN.
> And using a server is much
> better than using file:///, if for no other reason than the ability to
> track who made which changes.
Doesn't the file:// protocol still use the current user id to track
changes?
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 19 22:13:44 2005