On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:34:59AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:36:18AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > I would expect a feature like this to at least require some kind of opt-in
> > mechanism. In this case, it should require some setting in config that is
> > not
> > on
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:36:18AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, James McCoy wrote:
>
> > Subversion is a library and we should be very careful about this. I
> think
> this code is by default left out on Windows, but there are tons of cert
> reports wh
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, James McCoy wrote:
> > Subversion is a library and we should be very careful about this. I
> think this code is by default left out on Windows, but there are tons of
> cert reports where just loading a library dynamically to test something is
> a security problem,
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:00:00PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> > Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 11:26
> > To: Bert Huijben
> > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: svn commit:
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:00:00PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> > Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 11:26
> > To: Bert Huijben
> > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Subje
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:26:26 +0200:
> I am fine with restricting the PATH if that's a concern. Not sure what
> this would look like on Windows but we could probably restrict it to
> something like "/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin" on Unix-like systems without
> much risk of breaki
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 11:26
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1794433 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
>
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:13:
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:13:57AM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> I haven’t investigated this any further, but do we now try to start the
> gpg-agent on every invocation of a command just to poll if we perhaps have a
> GPG agent running, and might want to use that authentication option?
No. gpgconf
I haven’t investigated this any further, but do we now try to start the
gpg-agent on every invocation of a command just to poll if we perhaps have a
GPG agent running, and might want to use that authentication option?
I don’t think we want to do that as a simple replacement of a cheap check of a
9 matches
Mail list logo
