> >> A role is essentially a group.
> >
> >I think the general consensus is that a role is not essentially
> a group although
> >the two can be easily confused ;-)
>
> If you have a role, you're in a group - the group
> of all people with that role.
>
> My apologies for having included the worl
On Sunday 16 December 2001 09:21 am, Chris Withers allegedly wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:43:45 -0500 (EST):
> > >I've found that it would be very useful to be able to define groups of
> > >users and then grant a local role to that group rather than individual
> > >
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:21:04 +:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:43:45 -0500 (EST):
>> >I've found that it would be very useful to be able to define groups of
>> >users and then grant a local role to that group rather than individual
>> >users.
>>
>> A role is esse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:43:45 -0500 (EST):
> >I've found that it would be very useful to be able to define groups of
> >users and then grant a local role to that group rather than individual
> >users.
>
> A role is essentially a group.
I think the general consensus
