Re: Project Hosting [Was Re: Minutes of the GNOME ...]
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: George <jirka 5z com>
- Cc: Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>, Russell Steinthal <rms39 columbia edu>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Project Hosting [Was Re: Minutes of the GNOME ...]
- Date: 03 Dec 2000 16:25:43 -0500
George <jirka 5z com> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 06:44:18PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Although I have some thoughts about the merits of this proposal, I'd
> > > like to make a meta-point instead: isn't this more properly a
> > > gnome-hackers discussion, rather than a foundation-list one?
> > I think a fundamental issue is being overlooked here. If we have no remotely
> > centralised CVS how are translators going to function. How is things like
> > mass document conversion for nautilus going to be organised.
> > It sounds like for the sake of a few peoples political objection to basic ACLS
> > folk are prepared to screw the entire setup
> My objection to ACLs is not just political. My objection is also very
> technical. You just cannot have the amount of cooperation that you can have
> on the GNOME CVS currently if you put ACLs in. I could very well say:
> "It sounds like for the sake of a few people wanting basic ACLS
> folk are prepared to screw the entire setup."
> And that is my feeling.
There is a very wide range of possibilities for ACLS. A
decent ACL system would allow matching against rules like:
allow jirka to commit any module
allow group translators to commit to gtk+/po
allow owen, timj to commit to gtk+
deny all to commit to gtk+
If we had a system in place like that, I think we would have sufficient
flexibility to gain something while not hurting the ability to
get work done.
And I don't think implementing something like this is that hard
even on top of unmodified CVS.
] [Thread Prev