On Dec 2, 2004, at 7:10 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 12:41 PM 12/2/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
In this case, I'm the moron because I can't figure out what to do in
velocity to deal w/ 1.3 (as well as log4j-dependent code that I have
elsewhere), other than to make log4j support an option and force
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a feeling that attempting to build with previous versions
that passed isn't a good idea?
Not at all. It is a very good idea that only needs to get coded. The
"only" is the problem here.
And I have the algori
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a feeling that attempting to build with previous versions
> that passed isn't a good idea?
Not at all. It is a very good idea that only needs to get coded. The
"only" is the problem here.
Stefan
--
I'm glad to see that Ceki is looking for the same thing I am looking for..
Notification of when my dependee's break due to my code change. I *think*
that is MUCH more important then notification of when my dependency breaks.
But, it all depends on the projects orientation.
The needs of project w
At 12:41 PM 12/2/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
In this case, I'm the moron because I can't figure out what to do in
velocity to deal w/ 1.3 (as well as log4j-dependent code that I have
elsewhere), other than to make log4j support an option and force users to
deal with it. Not my first choice.
On Dec 1, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 03:44 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I think it's better if we start to nag ourselves first and see how we
can increase the signal/noise ratio before we go back public.
It's not only about gump's signal/noise ratio but the attitude adopted
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 05:27 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If you have a better social algorithm that would stop you from feeling
insulted, let us know what it is.
It's not about me, log4j or velocity, but coming to the realization
that 100% backward compatibility is not always possible.
At 05:27 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If you have a better social algorithm that would stop you from feeling
insulted, let us know what it is.
It's not about me, log4j or velocity, but coming to the realization
that 100% backward compatibility is not always possible. It seems that
gump i
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 03:44 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I think it's better if we start to nag ourselves first and see how we
can increase the signal/noise ratio before we go back public.
It's not only about gump's signal/noise ratio but the attitude adopted
when things break. Allowing
nd data
> Subject: Re: [vote] turning off nagging until we feel gump is solid
> enough for that
>
>
> Eric Pugh wrote:
> > I think that it's more complex then just turning it on or off.. I'm in
> > favor of turning it off for now if thats the only option.
At 03:44 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I think it's better if we start to nag ourselves first and see how we can
increase the signal/noise ratio before we go back public.
It's not only about gump's signal/noise ratio but the attitude adopted
when things break. Allowing unaware developers
Eric Pugh wrote:
I think that it's more complex then just turning it on or off.. I'm in
favor of turning it off for now if thats the only option. What I prefer is
that if a prereq doesn't build/builds finally, I don't get nagged. That is
what generates (typically) the flood of emails... I only
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think gump's nagging is currently making more noise than signal
> and this is hurting our ability to come across as helpful instead of
> annoying.
Maybe. I agree with Eric that the "you no longer have a problem"
mails are a pa
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I think gump's nagging is currently making more noise than signal and
this is hurting our ability to come across as helpful instead of annoying.
I propose to turn off nagging until we fix this, we are the only one
making changes to the metadata anyway, so there is no muc
. I only care if my project
doesn't build/builds...
Eric
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8:43 PM
> To: Gump code and data
> Subject: Re: [vote] turning off nagging until we feel gump is solid
> enough
+1. Our probes are getting more done than nagging right now.
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:39 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I think gump's nagging is currently making more noise than signal and
this is hurting our ability to come across as helpful instead of
annoying.
I propose to turn off nagging unti
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:07 -0800, Stefano Mazzocchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think gump's nagging is currently making more noise than signal and
> this is hurting our ability to come across as helpful instead of annoying.
>
> I propose to turn off nagging until we fix this, we are the only
+1 from me.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:07 -0800, Stefano Mazzocchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think gump's nagging is currently making more noise than signal and
> this is hurting our ability to come across as helpful instead of annoying.
>
> I propose to turn off nagging until we fix this, w
18 matches
Mail list logo
