On Jan 16, 2008 6:46 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
<snip> > > if there are developers with sufficient energy out there to push > > forward modularisation in a different way with more forward planning, > > that's fine by me. i don't have enough energy to adopt that right now > > but don't let that stop you. > > I don't know what you would consider "forward", starting from the > current trunk, so I will wait and I'll keep watching your efforts. by forward, i mean coming up with new solutions which you like and also satisfy our other requirements by backward, i mean blocking progress by negatively blocking changes you don't like with neither reasoned argument nor alternative proposal > My opinion is still that you can keep working that way. I change my > "old" +1 to a -0 just to let people know that things have gone > differently from what I understood, your vote's history now and it's too late for regrets: what matters is the codebase going forward the initial movements didn't really touch the backend of JAMES, just the protocols. i don't have the energy to argue with feeling or negotiate a consensus over the backend. i'm really not particularly wedded to any particular arrangement. if stuff feels wrong then please have a think and propose a better solution. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
