on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58
>>
>> on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
>
> I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
Because that is where we are at! Duh! If the PMC group (including Costin)
agrees on something then that should be respected. The fact of the matter is
that the previous proposals have not been respected and I'm standing up to
fix that.
>> How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2?
>> I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims.
>
> And the other committers and Larry and...
Give me concrete evidence, not claims.
>>> 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having
>>> it or not.
>>
>> It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal
>> to make it so.
>
> I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
Yes. I am.
>>> Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
>>>
>>> At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
>>
>> No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete
>> refactor of
>> the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution.
>> If you had
>> listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would
>> have had this clarified for you.
>
> If you are happier that way, I am glad you keep telling what I should do.
Yes. I am going to tell you what what decided and what you should follow.
> I may have different ideas and still consider that to be an evolution.
Fine.
> Even if the majority of the PMC thinks one way, I still have the right
> to think otherwise and talk accordingly.
Unlike Costin, I am fully against censorship and therefore am not going to
disagree with you. However, when something is *decided* and *agreed* upon at
the PMC level, it needs to be taken seriously and respected. This is what
you are *not* doing.
>> Again, you simply don't understand how development models work.
>
> Sure! I went trough 12 years of software development without having a clue.
Open Source Software Development != Closed Source Software Development.
My assertion is that you are lacking a clue with regards to OSS development.
>>> Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I
>>> have understanding problems when I do not agree with you.
>>
>> It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind
>> because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things
>> where clarified and discussed.
>
> I am glad you are so happy for thinking you know what I understand or not.
Then word your statements in such a way to make me believe that you do
understand. So far, you haven't done that.
>>> My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation
>>> here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help.
>>
>> You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought?
>
> What concrete evidence to you have to support yours?
Costin and others have no been providing any sort of support for others on
the mailing list. That is clear. Read the archives of this list.
Now, what concrete evidence do you have that releasing CVS head as 3.3 "will
help"?
> Project dead line. Know the concept?
You seem to have plenty of time to answer my emails.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
