Please try to respect the concerns of others.

>From your postings I understand that all you really need in the Vodafone
environment is a unicast alternative for the present multicasting. I'm
confident that a hack-proposal to add support for this in CVS HEAD would
have passed the vote. That would be all you need, because in that case
you could apply the patch locally, and be confident that the it would
remain to be supported in future releases of MMBase. For some reason you
chose to modify the existing multicasting behaviour as well, which
caused the proposal to be rejected. 

I respect you opinion, but I don't approve if you bail out that easily.
I think that ommitters have a moral obligation to show a fair amount of
good will to come to a mutually acceptable solution. One way for you to
do so is to rephrase your proposal - leaving out the multicast
modification - and resubmit it. 
Please do.

Rob van Maris
Technical Consultant

Quantiq
xmedia & communication solutions

Koninginneweg 11-13
1217 KP Hilversum
 
T    +31 (0)356257211
M    +31 (0)651444006
E    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W   http://www.quantiq.com


> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nico Klasens
> 
> I am just suprised that it was very easy to put the code here 
> in production and that it didn't pass the vote to put it into 
> the development branch of MMBase. I have no idea how to 
> change the code to let it pass. I offered a two-line code 
> change for the raised issue without success. It seems silly 
> to me to propose the exact same code with only 2 lines 
> changed for an underconstruction codebase. The code in the 
> 'speeltuin' has more lines changed just to let the deployer 
> decide what to do with the issue instead of the developer.
> 
> I have no issues with the nature of a hack. IMO, committers 
> are allowed to narrow down the scope of the affected code 
> (bases) and add requirements to the checked in code. This is 
> why I am suprised that it didn't make it into head. If it 
> turns out in the vote that the offered code requires some 
> re-thinking it is better to resubmit the code, but I don't 
> think my offered code does.


Reply via email to