On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 17:45 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> OK, I'm with you on the security thing (being one that would prefer a
> USE=clientonly flag, remember, tho I understand the reasons behind not
> doing it), but I DO know there's quite the occasional use for someplace to
> host scripts, patchlets, a
Lance Albertson:
> > I'm just getting ansty about all these new people we're bringing
> > on and the security behind it. Thats my main concern at this point, not
> > whether your work is more or less than a regular developer.
Andrea Barisani:
> Seriously security_wise and admin_wise I don't see s
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:45:26PM -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Lance Albertson posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
> below, on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:14:11 -0500:
>
> > Ok, after talking with a few folks I want to retract my comment about no
> > shell access. I didn't think about the other groups (docs
Lance Albertson posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:14:11 -0500:
> Ok, after talking with a few folks I want to retract my comment about no
> shell access. I didn't think about the other groups (docs) that already
> have shell access and retain a simliar status as
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:55:35 +0200:
> And until you don't figure on roll-call after taking a quiz, you can't
> be considered "Official Staff/Developers", so you can't just say "we're
> official", also ATs getting developers mus
