"Sidelined" is the best one I've heard so far.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Rob Mensching <r...@robmensching.com>wrote:
> Ahh, well, see below for how to get code integrated. **Might** still be
> able to make the WiX v3.8 RTM train.****
>
> ** **
>
> Hopefully, this also clears up all the confusion below.****
>
> ** **
>
> Still looking for the right term for “meh” to communicate the concept.
> David’s “Forsaken” is pretty cool but I don’t think that says the right
> thing. <smile/>****
>
> ****
>
> “Sidelined”…? ****
>
> ** **
>
> ---****
>
> *From:* Christopher Painter [mailto:chr...@iswix.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:04 AM
>
> *To:* WiX toolset developer mailing list; WiX toolset developer mailing
> list
> *Subject:* Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> ** **
>
> I deleted the pull request / fork because it was on the 38 branch and the
> issue was moved to 3x. (The code "lost" was minimal since it was a handful
> of XML lines. )
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Rob Mensching" <r...@robmensching.com>
>
> *Sent*: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:59 AM
>
> *To*: "WiX toolset developer mailing list" <wix-devs@lists.sourceforge.net
> >
>
> *Subject*: Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"
>
>
> ****
>
> Heh, my bad. I thought I saw a pull request come through and since there
> was no such pull request open any longer I thought it got integrated. I
> guess I just imagined the pull request. So, take the last paragraph as what
> would happen if there was a pull request. <smile/>****
>
> ****
>
> Note: to get the fix in wix38 (or maybe wix39 when it is opened soon),
> mark the bug to be triaged again noting that pull request is open or coming
> soon and it will get put in a real release.****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Christopher Painter [mailto:chr...@iswix.com <chr...@iswix.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:05 AM
>
> *To:* WiX toolset developer mailing list; WiX toolset developer mailing
> list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> ****
>
> Where was it integrated? The bug was moved to 3.x and I don't see the
> changes on any of the branches.
>
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Rob Mensching" <r...@robmensching.com>
>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:14 PM
>
> *To*: "WiX toolset developer mailing list" <wix-devs@lists.sourceforge.net
> >
>
> *Subject*: Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> Looking for something that says: “technically possible but not something
> that we actively want to do.”****
>
> ****
>
> That means that if someone wants it done, they’ll likely need to go do it
> themselves. The bugs we keep open are bugs that are “we really should fix
> these” such that “if you’re looking for a bug, please pick one of these
> first”. We want something to resolve these bugs so people can find them as
> “stuff that isn’t fixed and wasn’t outright denied”.****
>
> ****
>
> The GAC thing is a good example. We don’t strong name sign for GAC’ing. We
> strong name sign so that people that have to sign their assemblies (some
> enterprises require it) can write extensions that depend on our assemblies.
> Strong naming is infectious from the top.****
>
> ****
>
> Funny enough the NuGet guys just went through this (they started strong
> naming a release or two ago). In their case and ours we don’t want things
> in the GAC because they create all kinds of interesting interactions, that
> are generally undesirable. Thus, “meh”.****
>
> ****
>
> But it was important to you so you provided the fix and it was the correct
> fix and it was integrated. Perfect example of how it should work.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Christopher Painter [mailto:chr...@iswix.com <chr...@iswix.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:21 PM
>
> *To:* WiX toolset developer mailing list; WiX toolset developer mailing
> list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> ****
>
> But you also say "if someone really wants to do it". Which is
> it? Let's say someone came up with something, submitted the merge and it
> was good clean code.... would it get merged or would it get shunned? Is
> it Meh or is it No Soup For You?
>
>
>
> I'll give an example. The interop in the GAC problem. Your comment was
> "meh, don't put *our* stuff in the GAC". I kept quiet but I thought that
> was a silly opinion. If you don't want it in the GAC, don't strong name
> it. What do you care if it's in the GAC? The Private tag is the
> correct technical decision but for some reason you find it unimportant and
> uninteresting hence "meh". Well, from my perspective we solved a
> technicial problem by putting it in the GAC and we are using it for really
> cool stuff other then just writing custom actions. To me it belongs not
> only in the GAC but it belongs in the .NET BCL as the missing MSI interop
> assembly. It's a kick ass library... the best of it's kind in the world IMO.
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> In m*From*: "Rob Mensching" <r...@robmensching.com>
>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:13 PM
>
> *To*: "WiX toolset developer mailing list" <wix-devs@lists.sourceforge.net
> >
>
> *Subject*: Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> “NoScope” doesn’t quite feel like saying “we’re not really interested in
> this bug/feature.” “OutOfScope” (which admittedly is even more words
> <smile/>) might be closer… but it misses the lack of interest part.****
>
> ****
>
> “Deferred” sounds a lot like we’re considering it for future, which isn’t
> true.****
>
> ****
>
> And yes, sometimes extreme “meh” sounds like “srsly” but it’s the same in
> the end: a technically correct feature we’re not really interested in.
> <smile/>****
>
> ****
>
> I’m not coming up with better words myself yet so keep ‘em coming… it
> seems like it’s out there.****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Christopher Painter [mailto:chr...@iswix.com <chr...@iswix.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:23 PM
>
> *To:* WiX toolset developer mailing list; WiX toolset developer mailing
> list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> ****
>
> Deferred is what we used at my last job.
>
>
>
> In the meetings that I attended, sometimes I heard "meh" really was as
> you describe but other times it was said with a tone of "you got to be
> kidding me... whatever".****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "John Cooper" <jocoo...@jackhenry.com>
>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:08 PM
>
> *To*: "WiX toolset developer mailing list" <wix-devs@lists.sourceforge.net
> >
>
> *Subject*: Re: [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> It’s not strictly one word, but “NoScope” is pretty plain.****
>
> ****
>
> --****
>
> *John Merryweather Cooper*****
>
> Build & Install Engineer -- ESA****
>
> Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.®****
>
> Shawnee Mission, KS 66227****
>
> Office: 913-341-3434 x791011****
>
> jocoo...@jackhenry.com****
>
> www.jackhenry.com****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Rob Mensching [mailto:r...@robmensching.com <r...@robmensching.com>]
>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:30 PM
>
> *To:* Windows Installer XML toolset developer mailing list
>
> *Subject:* [WiX-devs] Resolution "meh"****
>
> ****
>
> I was supposed to send this out last week and forgot. At our last status
> meeting we discussed a new resolution for issues that are technically
> correct but we’re not interested in actively tracking (usually because we
> don’t care for the feature… but if someone **really** wanted to do it…).**
> **
>
> ****
>
> The word “meh” captures the concept but it isn’t exactly the friendliest
> way to communicate what we wanted. So, does anybody have better ideas for
> a resolution? Keep it short. The ideal is one word (heh).****
>
> ****
>
> Suggestions?****
>
> ****
>
> Note: I also liked the concept of “-0” (aka: minus zero) but isn’t
> immediately clear what was intended.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are
> intended
>
> exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The
> message,
>
> together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged
> information.
>
> Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or
> distribution
>
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
>
> immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that
> developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white
> paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
> Android apps secure.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> WiX-devs mailing list
> WiX-devs@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-devs
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that
developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white
paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
Android apps secure.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
WiX-devs mailing list
WiX-devs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-devs
