[Ecls-list] CVS server mess, again

[Erik Huelsmann]

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure you want my advice, but: If you want a stable development
>> platform which allows anonymous access, stay away from CVS: it's very
>> hard to guarantee CVS access for anonymous users.
>
> I do not understand the reason behind your statements. CVS has worked
> nicely for the last years. The only problems we have had, and which
> pop every now and then, are not CVS related. Instead, they are
> problems with the servers: mirror to the anonymous servers breaks
> down,

Neither Git nor SVN require a repository to be mirrored on an
anonymous server: svn read only access on the developers repository is
safe. (I assume the same for Git.)

The requirement of a mirror for anonymous pserver access is a CVS
deficiency. That's why I say it's inherently problematic (from a
sysadmin point of view) to maintain anonymous CVS access. Between 2000
and 2006 on a regular basis there were security issues discovered in
the CVS pserver or its protocol. I'm not sure recently, because I
stopped monitoring it.

> servers get offline, they are moved, there are changes in the
> addresses, I lose SSH access because of stupid firewalls and IP
> blocking... All in all, this is a deficiency of all the platforms ECL
> has been hosted on. I doubt svn or git help on that respect, which is
> why we have now four different mirrors.

I hope that clarifies it a bit. And, yes, I'm aware that both SF and
c-l.net are in a move. I can't say I've had the problems you mention
with c-l.net and svn, however, I don't have a huge turnover in changes
either.

Bye,

Erik.