Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> OK, patch reverted at request of Tom and Peter. Please propose a more
>> generalitzed soluion. Thanks.
>
> Sigh.
>
> You refuse a 10 lines patch to access a stupid opaque type in the backend.
> You both refuse some things to be done in the back end, and also to add
> what is needed to do it in userland. Moreover, I don't think this patch
> did hurt anybody, as it was pretty invisible and was useful to me.
The point where it will hurt is not now, but when or if we need to
change the internal implementation of the entire rights system. Because
at the time we rip out the whole ACL, you or somebody else will ask
absolutely justified for backward compatibility. The reason to keep
things as opaque is the freedom this gives to change implementation
details without asking if it could possibly break existing code.
>
> I'm tired. When I'll be too tired, you'll just lose a contributor. A very
> small loss indeed, but I don't think it is a good policy for your project.
I do understand the frustration, but I hope you understand the larger
scale of problems that would be created if your patch got accepted.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
