Re: CVS policy

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On 18 Nov 2000, Martin Baulig wrote:

> Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com> writes:
> 
> > Well, you are making this statement assuming that ACLs cannot be
> > implemented nicely. I contend that they can be, but of course am unable to
> > provide such an implementation at the moment :)
> 
> Well, in addition to that I think, as soon as there is a reason why we need
> to have ACLs in GNOME CVS, this is a clear and obvious sign that there's
> something major wrong with it.

Huh?

The reason we need ACLs is because it's easier to trust the small details
to one computer than five hundred people. You may want to maintain the
delusion that we're all one big happy family, but the fact is that there
are way too many people with commit access, with way too many disparate
goals, to allow leaving order and smooth operation to chance. Giving
people the ability to control commits to their modules will only get rid
of headaches and arguments in the long run.

-- Elliot