Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] restricting access to important spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Treeve Jelbert <treeve AT scarlet.be>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] restricting access to important spells
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:43:59 +0200

On Thursday 13 July 2006 18:20, Andrew wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Arjan Bouter wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:24:22 -0700
> >
> > Andrew Stitt <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that inexperienced gurus should not be working on core spells
> > > such as ncurses, or shadow (as examples). Enforcing that through
> > > technology as a first step would be a mistake. I think restrictions are
> > > better handled by a social layer. For example, make it more clear to
> > > new gurus "do not mess with base spells directly in test, no matter how
> > > trivial your changes".
> >


we could move the really critical spells to a separate CRITICAL section and
put some warnings in the section
> > Catching this with a social layer would require these spells to be
> > clearly marked as being special.
> >
> > On IRC I said I'd volunteer as maintainer of the linux-pam spell, would
> > just adding a MAINTAINER= line to the DETAILS file be enough to warn
> > people that they shouldn't "mess with it" as you put it?
>
> I meant more on a broader scale.
>
> We tell people, do not mess with important spells if you dont know what
> you're doing or intend to test them well. Use common sense, test spells,
> if you can't, use devel, thats why we have it (Im sure someone will
> respond that they thought we got rid of devel). If they're core spells
> (if we have to make a list of these or mark them as such then so be it,
> although I'd be disappointed if we really needed to resort to that),
> test them well, or push them to devel so others can. I agree with Jeremy
> if they fail to do that repeatedly, *then* we remove their access. I
> too dont care who it is, what they do for us, even if its me.
>
> -Andrew

--
Regards, Treeve

Attachment: pgpyeM3uI186t.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page