Not really, my point stands. Show the code, then we vote. :) On the other hand, consensus building can't harm either.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 07:14:26AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Maybe the tradition should be of an Apache project? :) > > From my limited interaction w/ the Linux kernel community, it's a very > different beastie... > > geir > > On Jan 1, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:15:21AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote: >>> No. The primary reason is "why change - the current mechanism has >>> worked for a >>> year". Damien (project lead) doesn't regard change as necessary, and >>> a >>> significant change to support top-level reflexivity (which is your >>> primary >>> thrust) doesn't have support from the other gatekeepers. There is >>> some support >>> for name identity, although I suspect not enough to prompt a change. >> >> I appreciate you're frustrated with the current situation Antony, but I >> think >> it's unfair for you to be claiming any kind of consensus without a >> vote. I would >> be interested in seeing a patch, explanation, and vote. I've already >> expressed >> my agreement with many of the points you've raised, and I'm not the >> only one. >> >> It's pretty pointless for us to keep sending emails over proposed >> changes to the >> code without actually seeing the changes. So, in the tradition of the >> Linux >> kernel, show the code and let's have a vote! >> > -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
