On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:45:21AM +0200, Joerg Bornemann wrote: > On 24-Oct-14 11:37, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> What is rationale for the "technical enforcement"? > >> > > years of preaching "don't rebase unnecessarily" and "don't create > > spurious dependencies" being mostly ineffective. "i pushed an update to > > your change, take care not to overwrite it accidentally" being futile on > > a regular basis. people demanding ridiculously short review cycles, > > because waiting for a review "holds them up for 'process' reasons". etc. > > iow, the usual results of inattentivenes, indifference (unless one is > > the reviewer affected by it, of course), impatience, and sheer laziness. > > and sometimes even genuine mistakes. > > I for one already did this manually where it made sense. > did it ever occur to you that what you deem sufficient might not be viewed that way by the receiving end?
> Some of us don't. > yes. what would be your *good* reason to accept this given a way to get it right, always, at zero cost? > Anyways, you missed the chance to convince people from the awesomeness > of your script before pissing everybody off with your megalomania. > i don't need to convince anyone of its awesomeness - the script will do that itself. otoh, your obstinate refusal to even try it doesn't speak for *your* character. in fact, it reminds me of a querulous, defiant child below ten. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
