<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/17/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">inkfree press</b> <<a href="mailto:inkfree@gmail.com">inkfree@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>(Note:<br>Perhaps re-thiking the nature and purpose of, and therefore the on-server<br>handling of, the sandbox space will also suggest some alternative end-user<br>interface to the downloadable-accessible contents. If it does not make
<br>technical sense to provide end-user access through the current web<br>interface, then perhaps some additional "public" flags could allow<br>individual authors the choice to make certain content end-user accessible.)
</blockquote><div><br>No. You're a "dev" if you can use CVS to access stuff. You're an "end user" if you click on links to download modules. The stuff there is "public" and anyone that knows CVS can go and go it
<br></div><br></div>Many threads, all veering off target. I think we've got consensus that:<br>* sandboxes should stick around<br>* we'd like to be flexible about what's in there for community sharing, but policy needs updating
<br>* maybe they should move to a separate repo<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Boris Mann<br>Vancouver 778-896-2747<br>San Francisco 415-367-3595<br>Skype borismann<br><a href="http://www.bryght.com">http://www.bryght.com</a>