bzr+ssh on Windows?

[Maritza Mendez]

Ah.  But there is the catch.  Passing to an underlying ssh suite means
knowing how ssh is set up on each supported platform.  It might be
appropriate for bzr-explorer to have that platform awareness but maybe
not so elegant for qbzr...which I suspect is the layer which would
need it.  If qbzr does support connection reuse in the future then
maybe bzr explorer could deal with the platform specific ways of
creating a connection which qbzr could inherit.

Of course the only real answer lies with whoever is motivated to do
it.  I suppose it might be less inelegant if there was an ssh suite
for windows which used a 1 to 1 map to the conventional OpenSSH .ssh
folder and filenames.

On 8/23/10, John Barstow <jbowtie at amathaine.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Maritza Mendez <martitzam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I also thought that it would be nice to have authentication.conf either
>> contain or point to my private key.  I was trying to avoid setting up a
>> Windows replacement for ssh-agent of course.  But then I started
>> thinking...
>> bzr should not really need to know any more about protocols than
>> absolutely
>> necessary to be a consumer of protocols.  Making bzr responsible for
>> accessing private keys essentially puts bzr in the role of ssh-agent
>> handling sensitive data and violates separation of concerns.  And as much
>> as
>> I admire the brilliance of the bzr-core devs -- truly -- I'm not sure I
>> want
>> them spending their time writing security code.  Better to piggyback on
>> existing trusted solutions and let them stick to making bzr even greater.
>
> Well, it would just be passed as a parameter to the underlying ssh
> implementation (which would actually do the file access etc) so I
> don't see that as a real issue.
>
> But I can live with punting to .ssh/config so long as we document how
> to set it up.
>
>