Re: svn????????

So, um.... who's the user that owns the Subversion repository and runs
the Subversion server process? Please don't tell me you all use the
file:// protocol in order to get around this security issue.

If you use Hudson <https://hudson.dev.java.net/> with Subversion, you
really wouldn't need to give the Hudson server write access to your
Subversion repository. In Subversion, you can use the Subversion
revision number as a psudo-tag, so you don't have to make a new tag
for each build. Hudson shows you the Subversion revision number of
each build. Hudson will also store your build artifacts and other
items, so you don't have to check those into Subversion either.

Give Hudson a try. It's really very easy to setup and use.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Johan Corveleyn
<johan.corveleyn_at_uz.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
> Well that would be fine, except for security: you'd need to have a generic "build user" (not corresponding to a real person), with fixed password, that has write access to the repository (needs to commit version info, make branches, tags, ...). In our case this means this "user" has to exist in our LDAP in the developers group (only that LDAP group has write access currently).
>
> Our sysadmins don't like such generic user accounts (for one thing: their password tends to be fixed over time to help all the automation, contrary to normal accounts, which are forced to change their password every x months).
>
> That's why we thought: why not let every developer build under his own account (but share the WC to speed up things), and avoid this whole issue.
>
> Johan
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikesell_at_gmail.com]
> Verzonden: donderdag 30 april 2009 15:43
> Aan: Bob Archer
> CC: Johan Corveleyn; users_at_subversion.tigris.org; xuer811
> Onderwerp: Re: svn????????
>
> Bob Archer wrote:
>>> Hmmm, we were planning to do this in the following scenario:
>>> - during normal development, everyone has his own local WC
>>> - for building, we use a fixed build machine (*nix machine) with a
>>> "shared" WC (we take rotations to perform the build)
>>>
>>> I guess this sort of WC-sharing should be fine, shouldn't it?
>>
>> Yes it "should" be ok. However, why not create a build script and automate it. First, this means only the "automation" is using the WC. And second, your devs don't have to do it manually.
>>
>
> Or start with something like hudson and let it run your automation.
>
> --
>   Les Mikesell
>    lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1995411
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
>

-- 
David Weintraub
qazwart_at_gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1998860
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].