At 10:53 AM 06/14/2001, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
>A reply like this is so disappointing.
I couldn't agree more. I found your reply very disappointing, and
insulting.
>>Three +1 votes are not required for commits like this. That is
>>really only needed when you have "big" functionality, or you make
>>large (design) changes to the system. Most everything else is
>>commit-then-review.
>
>WHy is this not done with some patches I sent out a while ago??
No one noticed them, no one thought they were any good, or everyone
was just too busy and forgot about them. If you don't get any
response to a patch, send it again about a week later.
>>I committed the code because it looked just right to me. With it in
>>source control, we can refine it if necessary. But even better: we
>>can build on it now.
>
>So why is code which looks right to me not commited?? I can tell you
>the answer, "I don't have commit access".
"I don't have commit access, and I wasn't able or didn't bother to
convince anyone else with commit access that it was a good idea."
>This is what I think is freightening. Someone like you thinks it is
>the absolute right answer and therefore it must be done that way. I
>will see it this way, you are having commit access and I
>don't. This is regardless which is the right answer to some problem.
"the right answer" can be very subjective. You're doing the same
thing you're accusing Greg of doing: you're stuck on the fact that
your way is the only right way.
>it needs to be said that there is indeed an Apache 2.0 code police.
Absolutely. They're the people with commit access. You make it
sound like this is a bad thing.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We thought you were dead."
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"
