On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right.
And what do you mean by that? What is "Yeah right" about
me claiming to at times being on the 'code talking'
side and the 'bullshit walking' side? Or is this just
a sample of your personal charm?
So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy campers (2 of
them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and the rest
of the committers are either do not care or are unhappy. Most also
want a change in the development process, and as long as there's
agreement on that and it respects the ASF principles, we should be
able to do that.
"happy campers"?? I have no idea what you mean.
It's fairly obvious that vetoes which "pack a lot of punch" haven't
been taken very seriously. The first reaction is to start arguing
that "the veto is not valid", and requalify technical reasons given
as "non technical".
If others agree that your technical reasons are valid, then they
are. If technical reasons are "I would have done it this way instead"
then the issue falls into personal preference and not really
technical, *objective* reasons. Unless, of course, one can
show qualifiable reasons why the other way is more efficient,
more secure, more maintainable, etc... you know, technical
reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
