Re: cvs 1.12.10 still using rcs binaries?

[Chris Bohn]

I guess I should clarify: we didn't just zap the binaries, but we moved them 
into a place not in everyone's path.  There are a couple of things that still 
needed them like ViewCVS.  I didn't list all this before because I didn't 
think the specific details were important to my original question.

The admin is the one that moved them upon my suggestion, and I don't see a 
problem with removing things if they don't provide much benefit and can cause 
trouble.  Training is great, and we explained to the user the problem, but if 
we can do one step more and prevent the problem from happening, even by 
mistake, then why is that bad?  Preventing a problem seems better than having 
to track it down and fix it the next time it happens.

Todd Denniston wrote:

> "Greg A. Woods" wrote:
>
> > [ On Friday, December 10, 2004 at 12:33:04 (-0500), Chris Bohn wrote: ]
> >
> > > Subject: cvs 1.12.10 still using rcs binaries?
> > >
> > > We removed the rcs binaries from our machines since someone accidently
> > > corrupted a cvsroot repository file by using rcs on it.
> >
> > That was a kind of silly reaction.
> >
> > Do you destroy all the knives in the kitchen just because someone cuts
> > their finger on one of them?
> >
> > Those same tools may have been the best way to repair the repository too!
>
>
> Yes, it does seem some parents don't understand that if the child can't
> reach from the floor (or climb to that height) or open the lock, the device
> is less likely to be used inappropriately. And teaching the children how and
> when to use the device when age appropriate.
>
> i.e., nothing stops the admin from moving or reinstalling the rcs commands
> to a bin directory not normally on all users path and making calls directly
> to them. Then cluebating any users who go near the actual repo with rcs when
> not needed.