[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: CVS Internal Authorization Patch

From: Andrew Gilmartin
Subject: RE: CVS Internal Authorization Patch
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:16:33 -0500

> This is about the worst idea for CVS that I've ever seen in my life
> (well maybe it's on par with cvswrappers.)

Why? If you don't believe an idea is good at least give the rest of us the
benefit of your reasoning.

-- Andrew

>From address@hidden Tue Nov 07 17:38:59 2000
Received: from ([])
        by with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
        id 13tHOL-0004Kz-00
        for <address@hidden>; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:38:58 -0500
Received: from[]) (1760 bytes) by
        via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp
        (sender: <address@hidden>) (ident <[wN5yHUm+/rxWXm9UL2grNydwfuUXuMsB]> 
using rfc1413)
        id <address@hidden>
        for <address@hidden>; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:38:55 -0500 (EST)
        (Smail- 2000-Feb-17 #6 built 2000-Oct-21)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000)
        id A10614; Tue,  7 Nov 2000 17:38:44 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: address@hidden (Greg A. Woods)
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: RE: CVS Internal Authorization Patch
In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
References: <address@hidden>
X-Mailer: VM 6.80 under Emacs
Reply-To: address@hidden (CVS-II Discussion Mailing List)
Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
Date: Tue,  7 Nov 2000 17:38:44 -0500 (EST)
Sender: address@hidden
Errors-To: address@hidden
X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <>, 
List-Id: Announcements and discussions for the CVS version control system 
List-Unsubscribe: <>, 

[ On Tuesday, November 7, 2000 at 12:27:19 (-0600), address@hidden wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: CVS Internal Authorization Patch
> I would be useful to know why you think this is a bad idea. Otherwise
> your comment is of very little value.

There have been inumerable threads in this forum in the past which
explain these reasons in excruciating detail.

It basically boils down to the fact that CVS is no place for doing
authentication or authorisation or any related task.  More than enough
adequate hooks are already in place to allow CVS to use tools which are
eminently suitable for these purposes.

                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]