#1 is key for me - I need something where I don't need to download a new client for
everyone who wants to use ACL. #2 is pretty important too - I want something
centralized,
one file that I can check and see at a glance who has access to what. If #1 and #2
holds
for your patch, then like
hmm..
Well, it looks like my patch for acl grafted onto CVS has
pretty much sunk without a trace... wrong forum? philosophical
issues again? no interest?
If it is the wrong forum for patches, then what is the *right* forum?
If its philosophical issues again, then what are they and how can
we
It is the right forum, (I actually have your message in a queue of
things to look at right behind a patch by Dieter Mauer that deals with
keyword substitution, but which turned up an odd problem that I have
been trying to track down in that his keyword2-20k test does something
odd).
We are
ok,
here's acl for cvs - try II, to see if its getting through to the list.
The patch implements very simple acl at the code level, and works against
cvs-1.11.5/6.
Below is a bit of a writeup, followed by the patch. If people are interested in having
this apply against 1.12.1, I'll work on it,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:11:07PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[[ PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO RESPOND TO ME DIRECTLY WHEN YOU CC THE LIST,
and if you do not want me to do so in return then set your reply-to
header appropriately ]]
It is not possible for me to set my 'reply-to header'
If you think only for a very few moments about this problem I'm sure
you'll see that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ways
to manage special files using scripts and data stored in ordinary text
files, the latter which can easily be stored and versioned by CVS.
Sorry if
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:59:03PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Friday, September 14, 2001 at 11:59:03 (-0700), Edward Peschko wrote: ]
Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
Sorry if I'm not being clear - but to me, serialization is exactly that - taking
something
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:11:15PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Friday, September 14, 2001 at 14:13:20 (-0700), Edward Peschko wrote: ]
Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
Sorry you haven't heard the term. Its pretty common in OO - here the things
being serialized
way.
So far no one has disagreed. So is everyone in agreement with this basic goal?
All of that can be managed by the build system. You don't need it in
cvs.
well, technically you don't *need* cvs either. you could do fine with rcs. In
fact, programmers would probably live longer
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 11:41:34AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
From: Edward Peschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:34 PM
To: Jeff King
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
I want developers to see - locally - all
Of course you can. This is trivial. Simply push the starting point for the libs
onto @INC and then merrliy go about issuing your use statements. For example:
push (@INC, /top/dir1/dir2/perlLibs/);
... which of course assumes that everybody has their cvs archives checked out
in the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 01:15:34AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Monday, September 10, 2001 at 18:32:06 (-0700), Edward Peschko wrote: ]
Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
I beg to differ. Why should it *not* be a build system?
CVS is a version control system. It does
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 11:41:22AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
How does something that implies a build system have a drawback as far as
maintainability?
Ok, let me clarify myself a bit. I am working in a Rapid Application Development
Environment where compilation is not an issue.
In such an
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 06:03:53PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Monday, September 10, 2001 at 13:33:57 (-0700), Edward Peschko wrote: ]
Subject: Re: checking in links to source control
I want developers to see - locally - all of the perl libraries cross project.
When I do a release
hm...
didn't see you respond to the list, so here goes...
We have a number of perl scripts stored in CVS which share a large set
of common library modules. They work exactly as you describe, in that
they are able to bootstrap themselves onto any machine they are checked
out onto without any
15 matches
Mail list logo
