* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not > > work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions for an > > object that does not currently exist. > > There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions > changes. Are we restarting them here?
Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
working towards) would help with this situation some. I don't think the
ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
default permissions though.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
