James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21/10/2002 10:18:28 PM: > No, but the decision making guidelines give me and you and every other > committer a veto over any change. Nowhere does it say that that veto has > to be used immediately after a change to be valid, I (like everybody) > have been a little busy pushing out some product lately and it has taken > me a while to catch up.
Veto is one thing...backing something out without discussing it is a bit tough. > In any case, how is asking for an explanation of why the change should > be made objectionable? My assumption is that Emmanuel simply was not It's not objectionable. Changing it was without discussion/voting. [snip] > Frankly dIon, I don't understand why you are being so hostile regarding > all of my changes / proposals / comments lately. I'm sorry I haven't I wouldn't characterise my attitude lately as hostile. I think we've disagreed over the location of xdocs for aptdoc and this back out...other than that I've been real helpful...... > jumped on the jelly bandwagon with everyone else, but it's taken some > getting used to (there is a reason I use turbine/velocity and not JSP > after all, and executable XML scares me). I'm only interested in > maintaining Maven's original goal of making life easier for developers > (the users), as everyone else hopefully is. Sure, sometimes things have > to break in the interest of progress, but why yank the rug out from > under users every time we do a release for no reason? Not my plan or my goal.....we've been pretty stable on plugins for a few betas now, though. My apologies if I've come across as a pain in the ass and a rude SOB. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-maven-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-maven-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
