[PATCH] support SSPI for Windows

[David Pope]

On Friday, December 2, 2011 4:41:58 PM UTC-5, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 17:38 -0500, Chuck Kirschman wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Chuck.Kirschman
> > # Date 1322778699 18000
> > # Branch stable
> > # Node ID 6f36523ce8fc00d836770a1a0f481df0ed27983f
> > # Parent  351a9292e430e35766c552066ed3e87c557b803b
> > enable sspi for windows
> > This patch will add SSPI capabilities for both normal http and 
> ui.usehttp2=true
> > configurations of Mercurial on Windows. The check for the authorization 
> failure
> > has to happen at the point of opening the connection and resolved at 
> that time. 

I'm hoping Sune or Henrik can comment on this as they've already done
> some work in this area. I suspect we may want to put some of this in an
> extension. I understand there are issues here with keeping persistent
> connections that we might want to tackle on their own first (ie there's
> too much stuff for one patch here).
>
Hello all,

Have the Windows volunteers (Sune, Henrik, ...?) had a chance to look at 
this, or further their own work in the area?  I and my company are keenly 
interested in having SSPI built into Mercurial.  We don't want to risk 
having developers put their domain passwords in their hgrc files, and our 
current VCS supports SSPI out-of-the-box so it's one more hurdle for the 
switchover.  Keyring feels like a band-aid and doesn't help our credibility 
when advocating the switch.

I saw the recent discussion about the volunteer nature of Mercurial 
development, which makes perfect sense.  If bodies are needed for testing 
or developing, I'd be happy to help.  I've done some minor SSPI-related 
development in the deep murky past, although I doubt that's what's needed 
here.

-- Dave
(PS, I'm posting using Google Groups despite advice to the contrary, since 
otherwise I would have had to manually create something approximating a 
quoted reply (since I just joined the list).  The bad things mentioned in 
"list etiquette" don't seem to have happened; crossing my fingers...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120414/788147ec/attachment.html>