On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:50 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:36 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > We have concerns, and you're telling us that they are petty. > > I didn't do, sorry if you could understand it like this. Earlier in this > thread, Marco wrote: > " Not going to happen, because: > - I consider my rules much more readable and elegant than yours" > That's trivial to fix by giving you a patch that adds comments ;) When/if/etc. we move over, I'll certainly end up doing that. > > You're also telling us that *we* have to do the work to use your > > rules, and have the fight with you to get your rules changed where > > we need to. > > I just _asked_ for getting a set of rules we all use, nothing else. > > You wrote: "The conflation of names and permissions in the default rules > is a problem for us", so why shouldn't I ask for the actual things that > cause problems? > I did that - having group names in the rules doesn't work for us. Your response was "Wrong". Sorry, but this is an actual problem for me, no matter how hard you wish it wasn't ;) Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
