----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If there are number of changes(as half a dozen protocol server regressions > > Then why are they not documented against the current code? Are you aware of > a half dozen regressions in the code TODAY, or are you simply dredging up > the past? If there are regressions against the protocol TODAY, then please > DOCUMENT them as you have been asked to ever since you first raised this > issue. > Noel you are taking things out of context. "If there are number of changes(as half a dozen protocol server regressions indicate) the process is to have a proposal not checkin into head. Checkin into head impacts everyone and causes 11th hour headaches for the release." This means the right process has not been followed and is causing all this mess. It may be better say that let us follow this process better in future rather than pick a snippet and comment/chastise. > > if there are many regressions caused by one developer, it is the right > > thing to point fingure and expect improvements. I will be happy if the > > person promises to test more in future. > > No, this is the wrong attitude, Harmeet. You could have done more testing. > I, Serge and Danny could have done more testing. You do NOT point fingers > to chastise fellow contributors. Agreed, I have already promised to test more. Hopefully others will to. > The point is that the presence of improper > conduct on the mailing list is not a license to contribute more of it. What > we need to do is eliminate it, period. +1000 on it. Hopefully this is the end of this thread. I'll go and use whatever is left of the holiday. Harmeet -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
