On Friday 31 August 2001 09:43, Jeff Trawick wrote: > Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Friday 31 August 2001 08:52, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > On Friday 31 August 2001 07:48, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > > > > > > -1 This is where we were before I made the change a few weeks > > > > ago. APR-util relies on APR to build, duplicating the build logic > > > > is a bad idea, because like all duplicate code, it opens up places > > > > for bugs to hide. > > > > > > That's just plain silly. Copying a file from apr to apr-util doesn't > > > introduce more places for bugs to hide, any more than copying a > > > libtool-provided .m4 into one of our own does. And this sort of > > > "duplication" has little relation to the changes you allude to. > > > > > > Do you have a real reason not to commit this, or alternatively, your > > > own working solution you can commit? > > > > Yeah, the real reason, is that this is completely bogus. > > That's just stupid. I'm glad you want to solve the problem and I have > no problem with your solution, but your veto was bullshit. > > The real reason is apparently that you have something you like better > (I'm not saying that's good or bad). "Completely bogus" is not a > reason to veto something. > > If you want to say "please wait before..." because you don't feel > something is as good as it can be and you want to play with it first, > feel free. I think everybody would respect that from anyone else.
No, having two copies of a file in two different directories is completely bogus. I have always said that, and I will continue to say it. That is what my veto was for, and I will continue to stand by it. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
