>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

>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


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to