[PATCH] support SSPI for Windows

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Sun Apr 15 19:15:57 CDT 2012


On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 10:36 -0700, David Pope wrote:
> 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?

Not that I know of.

>   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.

Your best bet is to pester Chuck into posting his patch again, giving it
a spin, and giving feedback. Until then, not much is likely to happen.

> (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...)

Unsuccessful.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.




More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list