Am Mittwoch, den 31.05.2006, 01:08 -0400 schrieb Serge Knystautas: > On 5/30/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I think this explain why I think that this is not a best practice. > > Most James discussions takes weeks and are lost forever with no results. > > This thread has gotten somewhat bitter.
> My 2 cents... I voted for Stefano as a committer and trust him to fix > what he breaks. discuss his changes, and scratch his itches. +1 > I guess I already said this, but there's a lack of trust among the > group about whether they think people will fix problems or will get > things done in time or something... I'm not completely clear what > Stefano is doing wrong: > > - proposed fetchmail refactoring using review-then-commit approach... > I almost think his changes could have been commit-then-review, but > appreciate the way he shared the work in progress. > - fixed our stupid build process that we've been meaning to do for > forever to not bundle ancient ant anymore. > - helped develop a fresh impl of spf and brought it into SVN. > > I understand people wanting Stefano to share more what he's working on > and changing, but the way things are getting said are unlikely to > create the desired result. > Im fully agree. Stefano do a really good job. And james-2.3 whould not be such a good release (maybe not finished) if Stefano had not do so much work on it! bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil