The consensus of the maintainers has historically been to never add features that they don't personally need, unless somneone supplies code, documentation, and a regression suite. And then it gets integrated at their discretion.
There are already at least two major splinter groups using features that have been rejected for whatever reasons: Those using advisory locks as supplied by Noel Yap, and those using mcvs. >--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Well, is it the consensus of the maintainers that they will *never* >accept any access control feature patches for CVS? Or is it that if >someone is willing to back-port and contribute this from the CVSNT side, >they will accept it? >I.e. is the opposition to ACLs a matter of priorities, or philosophy? >If it is philosophy, is it the position of the maintainers that ACLs are >so evil that they will actively oppose any attempt by anyone to insert >such a feature into CVS, in order to protect innocent users from this >heresy? >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
