On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 01:50, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 05:37:57PM -0500, Jeff Mitchell wrote: >> On 12/12/2009 3:04 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> > we have that problem only for acl-protected areas, which are a few. >> > i'm proposing a "soft acl" to be able to have more acls without >> > disturbing legitimate exceptional workflows too much. >> >> Where is this needed? >> > as i've already mentioned, i'd like to shield kdm somewhat from the > well-meaning, but usually ill-advised contributions, but i always found > a real acl a bit too harsh. > even nearer the core, i think the kate devs *might* want such a thing, > but i won't bet. > further out, i think some extragear projects might want it for the sake > of their autonomy.
I can only speak for Amarok from extragear here but I can't remember when someone outside our core team committing to our code has been a big problem. People usually ask even for trivial fixes. No need for any technical solutions here. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher Amarok community manager kde.org - amarok.kde.org - kubuntu.org claimid.com/nightrose _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
