On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 22:18 Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sean, I noticed you committed the change you wanted to the LICENSE files, > > in spite of my reference here indicating (more or less definitively) that > > it wasn't actually necessary. The change itself doesn't bother me all > that > > much, but the fact that you proceeded while appearing to ignore my > response > > at this point in the conversation does. > > > > I'd preferred you'd have at least made an attempt convince me that it was > > still a good idea, even if it wasn't actually necessary. I don't think it > > would have taken much to convince me (I wasn't strongly opposed), but the > > fact that you didn't try, kinda makes me feel like you were going to do > > what you wanted, regardless, and didn't actually care about the community > > discussion. That doesn't sit well with me. > > > > If my impression does not match your intent, please forgive me for > > attributing false intentions. I can only describe my perspective. > > > My apologies Christopher, I think we just missed each other here. I > try to isolate > my email use when there's coding to do in an effort to stay productive. > Once > there were JIRAs posted I presumed anyone with strong feelings would show > up > on them to discuss the changes in order to avoid clogging up the VOTE > thread. > > Since I had a limited window of time to work on things and I knew Mike was > going to want to spin a new RC this evening I pushed forward once any > issues > brought up on the JIRAs were addressed. Please take a few minutes to read > through things on ACCUMULO-4346 and feel free to reopen it if you'd like to > discuss additional changes; I believe Mike brought up the issue of > referencing > a specific file instead of including the text. > > > -- > busbey >
Okay. That's fair. I just wanted to make sure that the ongoing community discussion wasn't intentionally being brushed aside in favor of a unilateral perspective. Thanks for explaining. I was a bit sensitive and moody earlier and was prone to misinterpreting the situation, and apologize again, because I clearly did misinterpret. >
