[fossil-users] server SSL support
Hi, could you, please, implement built-in SSL support in fossil server? This will make collaboration easier, since there will be no need to configure/run a separate webserver... Thank you, ST ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support
why not put it inside in order not to bother with 3rd party stuff? On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 15:01 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:05:17PM +0200, ST wrote: Hi, could you, please, implement built-in SSL support in fossil server? This will make collaboration easier, since there will be no need to configure/run a separate webserver... You can use stunnel or other wrappers easily. Joerg ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support
On Nov 13, 2012, at 15:09 , ST wrote: why not put it inside in order not to bother with 3rd party stuff? To keep the core small? Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Expert Opinion Requested: Usage of Fossil to Assure Alignment of Collaboration In Large Projects - A Step Too Far?
Hello All, I'm sorry if this seems like a trivial question, but none-the-less I have not been able to find a concise answer. There might be none..? When people external to development groups need to be involved in development process, for example because of their scientific domain's particular usage of terminology, I often observe clashes between views of how the world works. Ignorant but hopeful as I am, I wondered whether fossil's with its UI-friendly capabilities could support the process of developing documentation BEFORE any coding actually is done. The reason for this ISO-9000 approach is that I have to align understanding between 3 parties. Let's call them developers, scientists and portfolio-manager. *They have to:* 1. Make an official sign-off of the documentation co-authored by the coders and the scientists and the portfolio-managers, unfortunately they do not necessarily understand each others domains. So, in this structure: + Managers and Scientists are in dialogue about contextual relevance and pursued functionality (very holistic and broad). + Scientists and Developers are in dialogue about pursued functionality and written code (very detailed and specific). + Developers and Managers are in dialogue how time (cost) is spend. 2. The documentation must be readable by the developers and scientists for check of the developers scientific understanding (risk of logical errors). 3. The documentation must be readable by the portfolio-managers who do not have the in-depth knowledge the scientist has, but needs to communicate what is being done, why time is spent on it and how each particular element is supporting the scientific program (to the management board). 4. In the specification process the portfolio-managers are given docbook chapters and asked to review these to check their understanding and get the board to sign off the investment based on their defense of the described features. 5. The developers can read the scientist-users usage of words and definition and use these in the development process, so that the scientists will find the API-familiar by concept; and if necessary the developers can challenge the scientists if the developers believe the scientists usage of the definitions are inappropriate. 6. The documentation is used by the client to describe and develop test validation cases in the same priority as the developers have to work on them. 7. The documentation is used as a project checklist to main mutual understanding of the progress. Now if ANY PAIR in this triangle fails, they all fail. But if they all use the same version-controlled documentation at three levels of detail (code vs. domain-scientific vs. common English), then each should be able to identify inconsistencies and prevent misunderstanding, which finally should accelerate learning and prevent waste of resources. However, in comparison to the default usage of fossil-scm, there are three users with overlapping similar needs, though different perspective. From what I see, fossil could be used if I could get a narrative (webmail-type) log-in for the portfolio-managers and scientists, that supports something like mathjax, plots and images. Ipython's new notebook gives a nice presentation layer, but it is missing the neat clean fossil-scm implementation, and doesn't support the 12 languages my development teams have to respond to. Following Fossil for 1.5 years I think we are close, but feel unqualified to answer whether we are close enough to crack this generic nut of collaboration. What do you think? Kind Regards, -- Bjorn Madsen *Researcher Complex Systems Research* Ph.: (+44) 0 7792 030 720 bjorn.mad...@operationsresearchgroup.com ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support
On 11/13/2012 03:12 PM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: On Nov 13, 2012, at 15:09 , ST wrote: why not put it inside in order not to bother with 3rd party stuff? To keep the core small? Also, safer. TLS is a bag of vulnerabilities waiting for a chance* to get out; better to keep it closed, in a separate unprivileged chrooted process. *) chances to get out are greatly improved if combined with insanity of OpenSSL API. See also http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2009-09-28-securing-https.html -- Dmitry Chestnykh http://www.codingrobots.com ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support
-Original Message- From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:fossil-users- boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Remigiusz Modrzejewski Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:12 AM To: Fossil SCM user's discussion Subject: Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support On Nov 13, 2012, at 15:09 , ST wrote: why not put it inside in order not to bother with 3rd party stuff? To keep the core small? A recent survey of apps that provided built-in SSH implementations found that nearly 70% included significant security flaws not present in external packages. The main problems were cutpaste errors, and failure to track updates to borrowed or hard-linked code. On the flip side, including encryption may make your app illegal for export to, or use within, certain countries. If a highly-regarded external app will provide the needed encryption, use it! -BobC ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support
On the other hand I think that what has been said in this topic should be in the FAQ of the fossil site. Maybe with a link to an fool proof how-to. 2012/11/13, Cunningham, Robert rcunning...@nsmsurveillance.com: -Original Message- From: fossil-users-boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:fossil-users- boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Remigiusz Modrzejewski Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:12 AM To: Fossil SCM user's discussion Subject: Re: [fossil-users] server SSL support On Nov 13, 2012, at 15:09 , ST wrote: why not put it inside in order not to bother with 3rd party stuff? To keep the core small? A recent survey of apps that provided built-in SSH implementations found that nearly 70% included significant security flaws not present in external packages. The main problems were cutpaste errors, and failure to track updates to borrowed or hard-linked code. On the flip side, including encryption may make your app illegal for export to, or use within, certain countries. If a highly-regarded external app will provide the needed encryption, use it! -BobC ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] diff-binary setting not honor on web interface
Hi list, I notice recently that diff-binary is not used not honor on web interface. Is it like this by purpose ? Per example I have *.mcs in my binary-glob setting and I have diff-binary set to '0'. From CLI, $ fossil diff a_file.mcs Give me cannot compute difference between binary files It's what I expect, But on web Interface, I still *try* to do the diff. The problem with those file is that they are very big and SBS diff take a lot of time or even fail to do it before a browser timeout. Regards -- Martin G. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
