On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:23:23 Dane Smith wrote: > On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: > >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco > >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's > >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to > >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't > >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs > >> about ChangeLogging removals. > > > > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other > > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on > > the policy towards creating it. > > There never would have been any such policy had people been a little > considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so:
sorry, but that's utter bs. there is a disconnect between what you find valuable and what i find valuable. all you're doing is assuming your position is right and mine is wrong and thus i'm in the wrong and thus any disagreement that causes strife after that is my fault. if common ground between developers cannot be attained, then it is the council's job to step in and make a decision. > And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current > situation. of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
