On Oct 16, 2008, at 13:12, Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, wrote:
>> >I just don't like any of the current protocols:
>> >
>> >http --> too slow
>> >https --> even more slow, difficult to setup
>> >svn --> insecure, featureless, dull
>>
>>
>> Dull? What does that mean? It works great and fast. And its
>> security is fine for many cases, though certainly not for public
>> servers.
>>
>>
>> >svn+ssh --> pain in the ***, doesn't play well with TortoiseSVN.
>>
>>
>> That's not true, it works fine. Take a look at Pageant (part of
>> PuTTY) or an equivalent SSH key agent.
>>
>>
> I say it is dull because it is featureless. I have to edit a text
> file to add uers, that's pretty dull and featureless to me.
How would you prefer to edit users? If your complaint is that there
is not a GUI or web app to edit the file, then write one. It's just a
text file; it's easy to write a program to edit it. (Though it's
probably even easier to just edit the text file by hand.)
> Sure, it's fast, that's why I like it. But being fast doesn't make
> it the greatest thing ever to me.
And yet your only complaint about http is that it's slow. So
obviously speed is an important consideration for you.
I think it's pretty nice that we have the option of a lean, simple
server (svnserve) or a more full-featured server (apache). I think
it's not unreasonable that more features come at the expense of some
simplicity and speed. That said, svnserve continues to be improved
and gain new features.
> And svn+ssh works fine for *you*. For me, I've had endless issues
> out of the authentication dialog in TortoiseSVN (It not showing up,
> etc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-16 23:45:38 CEST