On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Darren Spruell wrote: > On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote: > > > On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > Well, there is no solution. 16 was chosen a lot of years ago as a > > > > > reasonable amount of state to carry around, and that's the standard > > > > > and we're probably going to stick with it. > > > > > > > > What, then, is the correct way to separate the project files of more > > > > than 16 projects, where some users will need access to all of the > > > > groups? > > > > > > read again: there is no solution. > > > > > > > There has to be _some_ solution but it doesn't have to revolve around > > groups. > > Here's a long shot - it's crazy enough it might just work. How about a > real project management application?
See, I said there was a solution, and hey, it will all fit on one box. (or a pair for redundancy for those who need it). Doug.
