Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2007-07-19T13:08:17, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew has told me explicitly on the mailing list that he felt he had no
>> restrictions on what he could push to dev. Those may _all_ be good, but
>> does he in his judgment think every single one is low enough risk to
>> meet the criteria for a late date in the release? Do they have bugzillas?
>
> Not all bugs have bugzillas. And, with some common sense (as opposed to
> rush-mode), not every commit needs them if the changelog is good enough.
I'm not opposed to putting any particular patch in. This one looks like
it's probably a regression type patch.
I'm not in rush mode, Lars. If I were in rush mode, this would already
be out. I've been working on this release for more than 3 weeks
already. Indeed, if I were in rush mode, I'd just slap any old patch in
without looking at it, wave a few tests over it, and be done with it.
I'm in "let's try and do this right mode". You act like that's a bad thing.
I'm just following the agreed-upon procedures. They're simple, and
they're not a lot of work - and you agreed to them and pronounced them
as as perfectly sensible. If you didn't agree with them, you always had
the option of saying so. Now you're saying that you don't agree with
them, and they aren't perfectly sensible.
So, which "Lars" should I listen to?
The Lars that said the procedures are fine, and agreed to them?
or the Lars that now says I should pay no attention to our agreements?
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
