Hi. "David Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Petr, if your code is going to work around bugs rather than fixing > them, yes, I will ask you to rewrite it. I gave you a simple way to > tell when this is happening, and now you're going to leave in a huff? > If you don't care about the quality and maintainability of darcs' > code, then we're better off without you. If you do care about darcs' > quality, you should learn to accept feedback to improve your code.
> Darcs is a huge code written by many people, which no one fully > understands, and learning to work on darcs takes time and patience. > And I don't have the time for patient hand-holding. I suppose this still does deserve a reply. We aren't on the bestest of terms right now I understand, but I would still like to resolve this for the better. To make things a little clearer, no, I am not leaving in a huff. I am merely declaring issue885 a lost cause. There is a lengthy IRC transcript of me explaining to Jason what problems surround the code in question. I won't repeat that, since neither of us has time to deal with it. I find it somewhat distrustful of you to reject the patch without further understanding of what's wrong with possibly better fixes. But I suppose that's right, if your intention is to minimise changes to the codebase. I have tried to keep the disruption to minimum while fixing the issue and staying reasonably safe of introducing regressions. Note that I have no idea about the testsuite coverage or other safety measures, so I do have to stay clear of wilder changes (that's partly because HPC is currently broken on 6.8.2 and I don't quite have the time available to get a rolling 6.8.3 build right now). The bug in itself is not *worth* nearly as much time as I believe a proper fix would require. It's marked urgent in the tracker (possibly because it's a regression), that's where my intent to fix that comes from. I hope I have made all this sufficiently clear and that the terms can be a little friendlier now. (I won't deny that I have been offended by the initial reaction, though. I am not surprised if you were offended by my counter-reaction. I hope things are clearer and we can forget the issue. Well, I suspect there will be some more friction, as I am likely to push darcs in directions you may disprove of. Nevertheless, I hope we can get by on rather friendly terms. No point in making it any more bitter for either of us (or anyone else) than it already is. I will now patiently wait for things to come.) Thank you for your understanding. Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
