I am heartily sick of reading counter-productive "you guys are all crap" posts!
JAMES has grabbed my interest, of late. I am fairly keen on contributing some code to v3. If people on this list insist on spending all of their time sniping at each other, then I might just bugger off to somewhere where the community is a little more oriented toward writing great code.
If the latest build of JAMES pisses you off with the same old bug, then fix it and post a patch! If others have a specific issue with the patch implementation, then they should either come up with a better solution, or get the hell out of the way!
If NNTP does not work to a reasonable standard, then leave it out of the config (as Noel suggested). Let people that are keen enough to hunt out the feature, cope with the bugs.
I am itching to write the config stuff that I was talking about in an earlier post, while I have some time. Can we just get 2.1 out of the way, so I can scratch my itch? Is there anything that I can do to get 2.1 out the door? (I have already looked over the docs and posted one or two fixes.)
Cheers
ADK
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Harmeet, I really don't see any point in delaying this release further to fix NNTP. If that protocol is still broken, I would just as soon remove it from the distribution until someone has time to do it properly.Personally, I don't use NNTP with James, so I can't verify your unspecified claims at this time, but if they are correct, let's just take NNTP out until it can pass a protocol compliance test. What specifically ARE the problems? Basically your message, by your own admission, is a rehashing of old wounds without telling us what bugs you think are present in the current code. If there are some defects, there have been MONTHS for someone to work on NNTP. No one did. I proposed removing it before now, so if it still isn't working right, let's just move the thing to proposals/ (or simply remove the entry from config.xml entirely) and be done with it for now. If you want to prepare patches for NNTP based upon the current code base, please do so, and we can re-enable NNTP in a 2.2 update, perhaps in late January. I'll even start using NNTP internally, so that I can check it, too. As for your name, we've already agreed that ALL author tags will be removed from the code. This is community project, and everyone ought to take responsibilty for all aspects. Why is why I do find it annoying that you would post a message rehashing old wounds, disparaging other contributors, and not even mention the specific bugs that you feel are present. I don't find any of that beneficial to building our community. Your note could (and should) have been a matter of fact reporting of specific bugs that need to be fixed. --- Noel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
