On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> 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 would be very clumsy on the client side, since the client isn't going to understand svn-over-TLS without its own stunnel instance. -- D. Brodbeck System Administrator, Linguistics University of Washington GPG key fingerprint: 0DB7 4B50 8910 DBC5 B510 79C4 3970 2BC3 2078 D875
