On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:23:50AM -0400, Daniel Walton wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Daniel Walton wrote: > > > > How does this work then...is it your word no matter how the rest of the > >> quagga community feels? That is certainly how it is coming across. > >> > > > > Someone disagreed with my patch, it isn't going in. How is that my word no > > matter what? > > > > I'm allowed to argue why that patch should go in, surely? > > > > I'm not saying that you or anyone else should not argue for something they > feel strongly about. My point was that the majority of the quagga > community feels that the current behavior is a bug and that we should just > fix it while you are in the opposite camp and havent' been willing to budge > on this despite a month of discussion, clarification from the authors of > the RFC on the intent of the RFC, etc. If you are not willing to say "ok I > disagree with the quagga community but I am going to accept this patch > anyway" then the reality is that it is your word no matter what.
Indeed -- I think we've already had a discussion whose size is massively disproportional to the impact of the topic. Paul, is there a point where you accept the consensus? If you disagree what the consensus is / how it is formed -- maybe you could elaborate on how that works exactly? I'm in particular anxious to see a response & clarification on your previous statement of "The call doesn't decide the consensus." > We've been going back and forth on this since mid March. In that time we > (cumulus) have added 98 patches to our backlog of patches that we need to > upstream...we aren't making progress we are getting further and further > behind. +1, this backlog is a huge problem, where "huge" is defined as "endangering the future of the entire Quagga project." -David _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
