On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
> > I disagree pretty strongly with the idea of an admin binary.
>
> I think many of us do; I (and I believe Doug) were simply preferring
> 1) a single binary with 2) division of commands.
Good to have options.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Duncan McGreggor wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> I disagree pretty strongly with the idea of an admin binary.
>
> I think many of us do; I (and I believe Doug) were simply preferring
> 1) a single binary with 2)
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
> I disagree pretty strongly with the idea of an admin binary.
I think many of us do; I (and I believe Doug) were simply preferring
1) a single binary with 2) division of commands.
> Fundamentally my consternation with the idea comes from what I
I disagree pretty strongly with the idea of an admin binary.
Fundamentally my consternation with the idea comes from what I see as
such a clear and final delineation in what I expect will be a very
complex ACL set in the future. I can't see there being something as
simple as an admin and a user in
4 matches
Mail list logo
