On 14 Jan 2003, Karl Fogel wrote:
> <rbb@rkbloom.net> writes:
> > My main concern here, is that I am not willing to add code that I believe
> > to be a security hole. I would rather focus my attention on solving
> > other problems. Yes, it is easy to flip the default back and forth, but
> > by adding an initial default that I know to be a security hole, I am
> > saying that I do not believe the hole is big enough to worry about. The
> > problem is I disagree with that statement. If the code goes in with a
> > conservative default and then somebody changes it, then the person who
> > changes the code is making that statement, not me. The code we each
> > contribute speaks an amazing amount about what we each consider to be
> > important (not only in SVN, but in computer programs in general).
>
> Oh, absolutely -- what I was asking was for you to write the patch
> with the conservative default. That's the only thing that will go in
> under your name.
>
> After that, the list can continue to discuss the default; if it gets
> changed, that act will be attributable to someone else, not you.
That I would be willing to do, yes.
> > I have been bullied into making changes that I didn't agree with in
> > the past, I am no longer willing to do that.
>
> I hardly think anything in this thread can be called "bullying", by
> any stretch of the imagination :-).
I didn't mean to imply that anybody was. I have been bullied before by
bosses to make changes to open source projects that I knew were wrong. I
have decided to only contribute code that I fully believe in from now on.
I knew that sentence was going to be taken wrong after I sent it. I was
simply describing a past experience which is coloring how I work on open
source today.
Ryan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 14 20:11:49 2003