> Now, that the issue was fixed without me doing anything, I can reply. > > I think we are going too much in the direction of discouraging opinions and > ideas on the basis that no code comes with them.
Let us try to understand a bit. we have a LOT LOT LOT of duties for Pharo and in addition we have our normal work. Now people can express whatever they want. Now Marcus just mentionned that if people wants a chance to get their ideas getting real then they are not that many options. If people thinking that something is important do not put the energy on the table then why would other people with different agendas would do it. > In our particular case, it seems to me that it was my little suggestion that > triggered the energy to produce the actual solution. Sometimes, the obvious > solution is not so obvious (actually, I posted my remark precisely because I > finally figured out what was bothering me about the issue). We should > encourage people to think out loud and we might end up with better solutions > at the end. Yes but doru I have a HUGE HUGE wish list. So should I send all the items to the list and do nothing? No I should take a little one and do it even slowly. Then go to the next one. And continue. For example, even you when is the last time that you submit a fix for Pharo? Stef > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > wrote: > Doru > > The point of marcus is that we cannot take into account all wishes of > everybody: else we would not do anything else. > So if somebody thinks that something that is not in our critical path should > be changed he should submit code. > I have tons of ideas that could be implemented now since we do not have > infinite ressources we focus on the important > ones. > > Stef > >> I do not understand this reaction :( >> >> Doru >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 31 Dec 2013, at 11:58, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think this should not be a global preference at all. Most of the time, >>> you actually want to commit in the same repository where you always do. >>> Only from time to time do you need to switch and copy to another repo. So, >>> the preference should be per browser, not global. >>> >> >> consider that the issue was open since July. How likely is it that what you >> describe will ever be done? >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 14:42, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Marcus Denker-4 wrote >>> >>> - In monticello browser: when I select my project, all the repositories >>> >>> available in Pharo are shown. As in Pharo 2.0, it should show only the >>> >>> concerned repositories (2 or 3 max). >>> >>> >>> >> Yes, this was made on purpose and there is an issue that questions if >>> >> that >>> >> idea was good: >>> >> >>> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10551/All-Monticello-Repositories-are-added-to-all-Working-Copies >>> >> (this issue is from July) >>> > >>> > I commented in the issue: >>> > +1. I don't like this change at all. Would someone comment on whether >>> > there >>> > is an unseen purpose or this is a bug? >>> > >>> >>> I think we should set the default of the preference to be the opposite, >>> then it’s fixed with no >>> problems for those wanting the other behaviour. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"
