On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>>
>> Or perhaps stunnel, which has its pros and cons (e.g., an SSL
>> vulnerability won't compromise the svn process).
>
>
> I thought about suggesting that, too, but I'm not sure
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf
wrote:
> Or perhaps stunnel, which has its pros and cons (e.g., an SSL
> vulnerability won't compromise the svn process).
>
I thought about suggesting that, too, but I'm not sure it's workable.
While it'd be easy to set up on the server side, it wou
