From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13799 invoked by alias); 8 May 2003 18:03:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13790 invoked from network); 8 May 2003 18:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO molenda.com) (192.220.74.81) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 May 2003 18:03:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 43290 invoked by uid 19025); 8 May 2003 18:03:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:03:00 -0000 From: Jason Molenda To: overseers@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: /www/conf/httpd.conf Message-ID: <20030508110342.B41620@molenda.com> References: <20030507210633.GA12825@redhat.com> <20030507231419.A26514@molenda.com> <20030508143812.GA28678@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030508143812.GA28678@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:38:12AM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:38:12AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > As long as we're all letting the horse out of the barn, I have to say > that I haven't seen any argument made here which doesn't already apply > to other parts of sourceware which are already under cvs control. There > are plenty of places where checking in a file could compromise security. I agree - which is why I don't have any problems with the file being maintained under CVS. It's under RCS just for historical reasons. J