On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Tom Lord wrote:
> > From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
> > On Sun, 2003-04-13 at 20:23, Tom Lord wrote:
> >> Yet, under Sander's proposal (making reasonable assumptions about how
> >> he fleshes out tree-deltas), there is _no_ directory in a project tree
> >> that reliably records the merge history of that project tree.
> > Wouldn't the root of the project tree qualify, since changes to
> > files bubble up through parent directories to the root? (This
> > of course depends on how tree deltas are fleshed out.)
> Well, help me out here. If merge records "bubble up" that way, then
> the merge records for the shallow-depth subdirectories of / in the fs
> namespace will grow to be huge. And if they don't bubble up that way,
> then indeed, there is _no_ directory in a project tree that reliably
> records the merge history of that project tree.
> >> Second, are you saying that "CollabNet's commercial interests"
> >> do not have a significant impact on those core developers who
> >> are employed by svn or that they do not, in turn, have
> >> significant impact on the plans for and design of svn?
> > Given how many times CollabNet has made it clear that it does
> > not want to determine the design of Subversion or even determine
> > who has commit access to the project, I don't think you'll
> > have much success going over the developers' heads to them.
> Wow. What paranoid, f'd up language, "going over ... heads".
> >From what I've heard:
> (a) core developers employed by svn have a lot of clout in the svn
> community; they have a lot of influence over design decisions
> and project planning.
> (b) the degrees of freedom of those core developers is strongly
> influenced by the business plans of their employer regarding
> svn. After all, a substantial % of their time on svn is
> in service of their employer.
> In such circumstances, in all walks of life, civil society makes the
> judgement that "There is a conflict of interset there." We _never_
> burden people embraced in such a conflict with the responsibility to
> separate out concerns (a) and (b). We _always_ assume that even the
> most reasonable, well intentioned persons can not separate out such
> interests when they collide in a single mind.
In law, at least, we allow it in quite a few cases without anything
further required, and in almost all cases if the
clients consent after consultation.
I'm not sure whether this puts lawyers in the category of unreasonable,
non-well-intentioned, or not having a mind, or some combination of the
Or of course, you could just be plain wrong.
Have you actually looked at the codes of ethical conduct adhered to by
other licensed practioner fields (IE psychiatry, etc)?
Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
Just curious, not implying either way.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Apr 14 08:58:42 2003