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
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
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 algorithm
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
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
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
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
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.
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 one
+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
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 for that
+1. Our probes are getting more
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
