svn commit: samba r18187 - in branches/SAMBA_3_0/source/librpc: .

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 10:12 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 01:49 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:28 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 01:24 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:21:08AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 18:13 +0000, jerry at samba.org wrote:
> > > > > > Author: jerry
> > > > > > Date: 2006-09-06 18:13:16 +0000 (Wed, 06 Sep 2006)
> > > > > > New Revision: 18187
> > > > 
> > > > > > WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=18187
> > > > 
> > > > > > Log:
> > > > > > Replace copy of idl files with a svn:externals link.
> > > > > > Will fix the build_idl.sh script to only process the files
> > > > > > we are concerned with in this branch.
> > > > > Does this mean that we can no longer check out SAMBA_3_0 over just SSH?
> > > > Yes, you will also need to be able to open a connection to the SVN
> > > > port.
> > > > 
> > > > > I was wondering if we could have the main SVN database have the SSH URL,
> > > > > but change it to SVN anon when we create the anon export?
> > > > That'll be tricky to do. Is there a specific reason you are trying to
> > > > do SSH connections only?
> > > One is that it gives me a nice, warm fuzzy feeling that the code is
> > > being checked out over a trusted channel (important when then cutting a
> > > release and signing it).
> > That's a very rare case. You can still check out those directories over
> > SSH if you really need to.
> > 
> > > Also the need to allow a different port out of firewalls etc.
> > We (the committers) are the only people for which the situation changes.
> I presume we also can't commit to that part of the tree any more?
Well, we can't commit to that directory from Samba3 (where the externals
are used), but we can of course still commit from the Samba4 one (which
is where most of the changes in the idl happen anyway.

> > I agree that it's not perfect, but it does make managing these two
> > directories a lot easier.
> It would be good if SVN externals took a relative URL.  
Yeah, definitely. I'll see if there's a bugreport yet, otherwise I'll report one.

> > Another option would be to switch to using Apache2 + mod_svn in which
> > case anonymous and authenticated users can use the same server, though I
> > remember there were some security concerns with that.
> I really don't want us to do that.
Why not? We could use Kerberos authentication... >-)

Cheers,

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060907/d3f5fac3/attachment.bin