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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply via email to