Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> While true... we have a long time to worry about that. In the meantime,
> having to deal with sentinels can be a distraction from what is needed for
> 1.0. When different backends arrive, then we can examine other mechanisms
> for authorization (which may include introducing a sentinels-like system).
>
> > Then again, discussion is always ok :)
>
> IMO, not always. It can be awfully distracting sometimes. Personally, I'd
> rather spend time on 1.0 than discussing post-1.0 items.
True, but in this particular case, I think the discussion is very
helpful. Designing authorization systems is an area where experience
counts even more than usual. This list has a lot of such experience,
collectively, and Subversion should take advantage of it.
For example, there might be something better than the sentinel system
we've planning right now. I've always had the feeling that we might
be reinventing a wheel there; if someone on this list recognizes the
wheel and knows a better way to do it, that would be great. The
chance of that benefit makes the "burden" of discussion a good risk,
IMHO.
> OTOH, I don't approve of censoring or hard rules about mailing list content.
> So that puts me in a quandary :-)
Enjoy; let us know if you need pizza shipped in or anything! :-)
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:37 2006