----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I agree, but I fail to see the problem. In the case of the watchdog and > service changes, (a) I believe that there has been prior discussion, (b) I > believe that after the code was changed based upon prior discussion, it was > specifically posted for the purpose of inviting further discussion, and (c) > it hasn't committed before discussion. I apologize to all esp. Peter if this has been discussed and agreed on before. I don't think it is the right fix, but if the list has been through this, no point in revisiting. However if this has not been agreed on before I'd prefer if the Scheduler/Service rearchitecture changes are held off for at least 2-3 days. I would like to chat a bit more about this. - thanks. Some of my reaction stems from (a) AuthService(bad bug but that should not have resulted in Auth and Handler coupling) changes where a discussion was started and concluded in checkin before any consensus. (b) refactoring commits that seemed to be philosophy driven - again not bad but there is very little point in silently changing a part of existing philosophy. Harmeet PS: Hey Noel, you seem to be a really good facilitator. :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
