[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Update of sr #107077 (project administration): Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Reply to this item at: __

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #26, sr #107077 (project administration): This is setup, closing issue. ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via/by Savanna

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #25, sr #107077 (project administration): Implementation proposal posted here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2010-03/msg00019.html ___ Reply to this item at:

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #24, sr #107077 (project administration): Re-opened, assigned to self, marked as in-progress. Implementation discussion is in this thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2010-03/threads.html#00011

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Update of sr #107077 (project administration): Status:None => In Progress Assigned to:Beuc => kfogel Open/Closed: Closed => Open _

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #23, sr #107077 (project administration): Can this ticket please be re-opened, as all parties seem to agree (based on out-of-band conversations) that bzr+ssh access on Savannah is a desirable thing and not a security risk, and that it's just a question of resources now? Thanks.

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #22, sr #107077 (project administration): Also, regarding this: * "For example: do you intend, at a point, to implement centralised mail notification on commit? (which is the first thing people ask here) Currently this relies on an expansive, per-repository scanning every 5 min

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #21, sr #107077 (project administration): On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 23:47 +, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Follow-up Comment #20, sr #107077 (project administration): > > "bzr does not permit configuring server side hooks in the repository because > of security concerns" > > But ever

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #20, sr #107077 (project administration): "bzr does not permit configuring server side hooks in the repository because of security concerns" But every VCS I know allow this (?). For example: do you intend, at a point, to implement centralised mail notification on commit? (whic

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #19, sr #107077 (project administration): Sylvain et al, In https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?107077#comment14, Robert Collins (a Bazaar developer) points out that bzr+ssh access does *not* imply shell access or the ability to run arbitrary hooks. He also points out that sftp

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #18, sr #107077 (project administration): I didn't meant 'they do not mention sftp', I mean 'they are not related to sftp'. SFTP is a transport, its use is not implicated in the symptoms you reported. Whatever the causes were, it wasn't sftp. _

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #17, sr #107077 (project administration): Those bugs were filed before Nov 7, which is when the second corruption happened. During that period, we were using mostly bzr+ssh but I can't tell if some of us used sftp at some point. Our use of bzr-svn in the pre-Nov 7 period (i.e.

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #16, sr #107077 (project administration): Robert, those bugs are not related to sftp:// at all. ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Me

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #15, sr #107077 (project administration): At least the following bugs are related to our trouble with bzr: https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/bzr-svn/+bug/462988 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-svn/+bug/462109 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-svn/+bug/462988 I think it's a

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #14, sr #107077 (project administration): bzr does not permit configuring server side hooks in the repository because of security concerns. If you ensure that ~/.bazaar/plugins is not writable to (or removable) by the uid of the bzr+ssh server, then I'm not aware of any way for

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #13, sr #107077 (project administration): As Emacs is moving to Bzr, the performance issue of using sftp rather than bzr+ssh is becoming a serious concern. Read-only access via sftp is usually acceptable, but installing changes via sftp tends to be slow, and since Bzr is already

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #12, sr #107077 (project administration): Should I file a separate support request for enabling bzr+ssh again? It really does make a very significant difference and I don't want it to be forgotten. ___ Reply to this item

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #11, sr #107077 (project administration): Thank you! ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savanna

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #10, sr #107077 (project administration): I thought it was disabled, but it turns out it was enabled temporarily at a point but not disabled since then. This is the case now. ___ Reply to this item at:

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #9, sr #107077 (project administration): I don't say bzr+ssh is supported, I say it is enabled. In fact, we've been using it, with disasterous results. We believe using bzr+ssh is the reason our repository was corrupted, not once but twice! If you don't want to support bzr+ss

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #8, sr #107077 (project administration): You say you want Savannah to support bzr+ssh. I answered: not now. You say that Savannah supports both sftp and ssh. I don't think so, it only supports sftp. ___ Reply to this ite

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #7, sr #107077 (project administration): You're currently allowing both sftp: and bzr+ssh: at the same time. I suggested that bzr+ssh: be disabled for safety reasons. You cited security reasons in favour of disabling it too. It seems that we agree, so why are you closing this

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Update of sr #107077 (project administration): Assigned to:None => Beuc Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #6: At Savannah

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #5, sr #107077 (project administration): It would really be far preferable to support bzr+ssh properly; it should just be a matter of installing an up-to-date version of bzr on the server. bzr is really not at all network-efficient when using sftp, because it tends to have to l

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #4, sr #107077 (project administration): Does this rule out the possibility of corruption? We consider it quite likely that bzr+ssh:// is the cause. Colin? I'd like to recommend that bzr+ssh:// is entirely disabled untill it is clear that it doesn't corrupt data. We had repo

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #3, sr #107077 (project administration): Note that Savannah offers sftp-based access to the bzr repository, but do not allow you to run a bzr smartserver of the remote side. ___ Reply to this item at:

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #2, sr #107077 (project administration): We had some corruption issues with our repository (GRUB project). We're not sure what caused it yet, but we don't rule out the possibility that it could be related to our use of bzr+ssh:// If I understood correctly, bzr+ssh:// makes us

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

Follow-up Comment #1, sr #107077 (project administration): I think these warnings are actually a client bug. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/260335 says that it only happens with a bzr 1.5 client (the version in Debian stable, unfortunately) talking to a 1.6 or later server.

[Savannah-help-public] [sr #107077] bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp://

URL: Summary: bzr+ssh:// preferable to sftp:// Project: Savannah Administration Submitted by: robertmh Submitted on: Sat Oct 24 17:30:41 2009 Category: None Priori