On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 22:19, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:52:49PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> > Can we please move this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > A lot of the points discussed aren't about technical problems of httpd
> > moving over, but overall topics concerning our setup.  Most of the
> > concerns that have come up are things that people not directly
> > involved with Infrastructure are likely never having to deal with.
> 
> This discussion is about the version control needs of the HTTPD
> Server Project.

Let me be more specific: can we move the part of the discussion I
replied to?  AFAICT it isn't specific to HTTP Server at all.  Also,
how backups are done and the like shouldn't really be of concern.
I mean, in reality, how many people are aware of how that happens
now?

Let's discuss the version control needs of the HTTP Server project :)

> Please keep the discussion on this list with the
> users who will be most affected by the proposed change.

The proposed change, the subject of the thread, is moving to
subversion, nothing more nothing less.  Tamper proofness, etc,
are all things that can be discussed later.  And, IMO, are things
that are not limited to HTTP Server alone.

> > PKI, integrated with/on top of, Subversion, can be a joint effort
> > between the Infrastructure and Security Team.  If a good, practical
> > solution can be put together we can start looking how to roll that
> > out.
> 
> If having a tamper-resistant code repository is a new requirement of
> the HTTPD Server Project

It isn't.  Some of us are simply talking about what could be done with
Subversion.  I'm trying to get us off the side track in this thread,
that's all.

>  then we should discuss this in terms of abstract requirements and not
>  assume a particular implementation.
>
> Keep in mind that although the infrastructure team may be charged
> with managing the infrastructure, it shouldn't be pushing projects
> to use tools that they don't want to use.

Is there any reason you are mentioning this explicitly?

Sander

Reply via email to