| 1 |
On Tue January 06 2004 4:44 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
<snip> |
| 3 |
> turning all gentoo system into spam zombies. Then imagine I was the |
| 4 |
> manager of a company that as a result had extra costs of say $100000. In |
| 5 |
> that case I would certainly try to sue gentoo technologies inc. I feel |
| 6 |
> that I actually should be awarded damages. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm just going to let this part go but I will say I'm not advocating |
| 9 |
irresponsibility. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> This is certainly not a matter of broken ebuilds or instability it is |
| 12 |
> against protection of malice (i.e. criminal behaviour). Besides that |
| 13 |
> there must be quality mechanisms in place, but we must protect agains |
| 14 |
> criminal behaviour first. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I personally feel the fewer that have access to cvs the better. I and I |
| 17 |
believe Allen are advocating a better middle layer. One that eases the |
| 18 |
shoulders of the cvs devs and one that encourages more participation. |
| 19 |
Currently it doesn't appear that you can have that participation without cvs |
| 20 |
access. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't think anyone that only submits ebuilds should have or even needs cvs |
| 23 |
access. I want to submit and maintain ebuilds but I don't want cvs access |
| 24 |
until I'm submitting patches for portage or some other app. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Robert |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives