[7137] in SIPB bug reports
Re: So, does anyone still maintain the tcl locker?...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Mon Jan 25 01:44:17 1999
To: chad brown <yandros@akamai.com>
Cc: bug-tcl@MIT.EDU, bug-sipb@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "22 Jan 1999 06:37:00 EST."
<qjbhftjczdv.fsf@egon.akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:44:04 EST
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
>Finally, it IS my opinion that many sipb people have taken to using
>outland as the dumping ground for programs when they are too lazy to
>migrate programs to the sipb locker. I think that this attitude was
>started at a time when the sipb locker was nearly full, and something
>of a mess to maintain. This should not be an issue anymore.
I think you're missing the point. We're talking about deploying a new
program -- it seems clear to me outland is right, since there is no
support commitment associated (unless chris has one).
You can argue that people are failing to move programs that are "supported",
but I'm not sure any such programs would be supported if their maintainers
are lame. I'm not unhappy with the current situation.
>The SIPB maintains a locker for neat, cool, interesting, and useful
>programs that we find that we think users *in* *general* should want
>to access regularly: sipb.
>
>We also maintain a locker for things that may turn out to be nifty,
>keen, fun, useful, and/or stable. This is outland.
This seems to miss much of your prior exposulation.n
>Again `IMHO', almost every program in outland should be thought of as
>a candidate for eventual inclusion in the sipb locker. If people feel
>like to sipb locker has grown to be too `rigid' for members to make
>use of it, rather than turning `normal users' on the sandbox, we
>should fix the sipb locker policies.
One issue is that acl policies between the two lockers are pretty different.
I have difficulty imagining that this is the correct thing, though perhaps
it could be optimized.
--jhawk
