On Tue January 06 2004 4:44 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote: <snip> > turning all gentoo system into spam zombies. Then imagine I was the > manager of a company that as a result had extra costs of say $100000. In > that case I would certainly try to sue gentoo technologies inc. I feel > that I actually should be awarded damages.
I'm just going to let this part go but I will say I'm not advocating irresponsibility. > This is certainly not a matter of broken ebuilds or instability it is > against protection of malice (i.e. criminal behaviour). Besides that > there must be quality mechanisms in place, but we must protect agains > criminal behaviour first. I personally feel the fewer that have access to cvs the better. I and I believe Allen are advocating a better middle layer. One that eases the shoulders of the cvs devs and one that encourages more participation. Currently it doesn't appear that you can have that participation without cvs access. I don't think anyone that only submits ebuilds should have or even needs cvs access. I want to submit and maintain ebuilds but I don't want cvs access until I'm submitting patches for portage or some other app. Robert -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
