| 1 |
On 1/19/08, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> My core concern with the SVN http://, was the crappy performance it |
| 3 |
> provided compared to svn://. The main rsync tree has never been |
| 4 |
> available for iterative syncing via http://, just had tarball snapshots |
| 5 |
> and deltas instead. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
If I understand correctly, the performance of svn under apache is |
| 8 |
better than the svnserver, the same for git... Well... This is only |
| 9 |
for my experience. |
| 10 |
In git case, apache is used to transfer files, and it is much better |
| 11 |
in this than the most available alternatives. |
| 12 |
In svn case, apache provides the concurrency missing from svnserve. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > Also using none secured protocols, exposes users to man-in-the-middle attacks. |
| 15 |
> The existing http:// had this problem already, it's not a new one. |
| 16 |
> git:// and svn:// do both have patches around adding support for adding |
| 17 |
> TLS. This however just adds overhead, I really need to finish the |
| 18 |
> tree-signing work I was doing, as that protects the content better (MITM |
| 19 |
> is still possible on SSL without it, just a lot harder as an attacker |
| 20 |
> has to deal with the SSL stream first). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Even if tree signing will be available, the developers should work in |
| 23 |
secured channel... ssh or https... The users will benefit from the |
| 24 |
signing and not require secured channel. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Until signing will be available, I think it is very important for us |
| 27 |
to provide reliable source. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Alon Bar-Lev. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives