Peter Donald wrote, On 13/03/2003 14.58:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:32, Leo Sutic wrote:
Number 1: By deprecated, do you mean code marked with @deprecated, or code that isn't marked so, but no longer considered part of Avalon proper? I'm fine with removing @deprecated tags from CLI, if that's what you want, but I'm not fine with pulling it out of the compatibility project again.
funny thing is it should not be in the compatability project as I -1'ed that but then again maybe some people are more equal than others.
Below is part of the message that IIUC refers to the above.
Vetos do not apply to things such as organizational things, project management etc, which are a majority decision.
I regard the below as a vote, not a veto. These things have been wrongly treated as vetos in the past, hampering the ability of Avalon to make comprehensive project decisions.
Thus you have expressed your opinion and your vote, as anyone here.
So please stop this nonsense of being treated differently, because it's plain false. Yes, you are acting differently, but that's up to you.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: cvs commit: avalon-excalibur/io/src/xdocs index.xml menu.xml Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:37:19 +1100 From: Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Avalon Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Avalon Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
-1 on cli and io being removed as free standing projects. There is no justification for doing so and they worked fine as they were previously. Why break something that worked and add extra cruft into dependency trees of projects that don't need that cruft?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
