> > Granted, for all I know, there's lots. I was actually trying, > apparently unsuccessfully, to make a real argument that it should be > more difficult to take Joe Admin's special site feature away, than to > keep it around. Here I'm referring to what Jeff Hutzelman, correctly as > far as I can see, called "the bits reserved for their use," not this > pseudo sysv chown feature we're supposedly debating. >
The issue when you come back to stating it that way is "if it's reserved for you, why are we shipping code to do it" I think this is a silly argument, but there it is. > > > > > won't run it because they're scared. I don't want to chase away users. > > At the same time, it's important to support the things people need to do. > > > > This is mostly orthogonal to the issue at hand. > > I didn't think so. Where are we elsewise going to debate it? > In a thread devoted to the desired level of complexity OpenAFS can or should evolve to, not one people who don't care about site-specific ACL bits are probably now ignoring. > > At this point, I disagree. It may well be that we should move to a model > > where this is *stated* but at the moment it's not true. > > I really would prefer to say there need be no conflict between having > some experimental features that most users shouldn't select, and having > tests that validate the features we are intentionally be supporting. If > it's a matter of, well, stating that, then, why not state it? > It's a change, whether de facto or real. I'm not, by myself, going to state it. > > > > I offer no conclusion here as I don't feel I can. We should obviously > > keep discussing this. > > > > > > Maybe, as you suggested off-list, this thread per se can't bear the weight. > Sure. There are 2 discussions to be having. One is about the express topic of this thread. The other belongs in its own, notably, how much complexity can we sustain before people say "i want to shake the box and have this work, i am done, bye"
