At 08:44 AM 10/10/2007 -0700, Andi Vajda wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
And one of those reasons is that it's a silly thing to
offer. You're not a samurai, so there's no need to commit
hara-kiri just because some features got re-prioritized. Put the
sword away, already, nobody is questioning your honor. :)
Silly ?
Yes. Because you are not the repository, and the repository is not
Chandler. What's more, your numerous other contributions to Chandler
significantly outweigh the repository in both short-term and
long-term importance. And that's even more true today than it was
the first time you made your "offer".
It is rather discouraging to be told after all this time and work
that we did it all wrong,
"We" is a personal identification.
"Wrong" is a moral judgment.
I have made neither, so these are your interpretations rather than my
statements.
If somebody shows you a shorter way to get to the office from your
home, and you have been going a much longer way for five years, does
that mean that you were "all wrong", or that your trips to the office
were all wasted in some way?
If you used a typewriter to write a novel, and then later word
processors are invented, is the novel now "wrong"? Is the typewriter?
The existence of a better way to do something cannot make a
less-better way "wrong" retroactively. If it was good enough to use
before, then clearly it was not so "wrong" as to *not have been worth doing*.
I don't want to stand in the way of progress, in other words.
How do you believe you are standing in the way of progress?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
