> > >On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > >> >> The only way it will get delayed that long is if you spend all of your >> time stomping up and down, writing in all caps, and tell the rest of >> us that we have to follow the proceedures you think are appropriate. >> That's not how colaboration works. You need to compromise and not get >> all pissed off if the process requires you to delay your commit for a >> bit. > >Justin, the stuff was backed out when requested, and has been so for >quite a while now.
Sure. That doesn't excuse the fact that it was committed in the first place. >NOT ONE SINGLE of the dog-in-the-manger people has bothered to review it >in that week. How long is he expected to wait? So, after screaming obsenities at John and creating a big stink on our lists, you want to know why those in the know haven't felt like engaging Matt? I'm not saying that is an excuse, just a possible reason. I've already asked John to move this stuff along in my other mail, so don't try to pin me up as an obstructionist. >He's been sitting around for a week waiting for a single person to want >to discuss it. Hey, if Matt wants to believe that he can only be productive once his changes are committed, that is his problem. >> It is only a huge deal because it was made into a huge deal. If the >> change had been discussed prior to being pushed into the tree, this >> would never have happened. I don't think that John, or anyone else, is >> opposed to the change going in once some small issues are discussed first. >> Just get over this "I've been abused" bit already and discuss the changes! >> We all want to move on and I'd rather see us moving on with your changes >> than without. > >No it's only a huge deal because OTHERS made it a huge deal. So we're supposed to ignore it when Matt breaks the rules just because he is such a good hacker? Been there. Tried that. Now where here again. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
