|
From: | Dustin Sallings |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] oh the heck with it -- tla-1.2pre0 |
Date: | Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:54:52 -0800 |
On Dec 30, 2003, at 21:14, James Blackwell wrote:
Encrypted storage. I.e. I could replicate my archive to a location that could mirror it for me offsite (I do this with a machine at myoffice) without anyone being able to see the contents of the archive intransit or on the system.My vote on this one is no. Encrypted storage is antithetical to arch's intended purpose. Arch exists to solve the problems of distributed source code revision systems, not to operate as a secure remote backup utility.
That was an example where I was intending to show that the archive can be placed in less-trustworthy places, not where I was trying to suggest how I'd use it. I have an archive that is replicated that I would really rather have encrypted if possible. It's got personal stuff in it (letters to attorneys and what-not).
Are you suggesting that arch should only be used when all people who can access the files are permitted to check them out?
I imagine that as long as gpg is there to provide signatures but not encryption, there will be plenty of people wondering why encryption isn't available. It's the logical next step, and it is useful for one of my archives right away.
I do, of course, realize how much more simple it is to add signature support than changeset encryption.
-- SPY My girlfriend asked me which one I like better. pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden> | Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |