Matthew Hambley <matthew@aether.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Without wishing to appear confrontational I made no secret of the fact that
> I was going to do this work and that this is the way I was going to do it.
> Couldn't you have mentioned your concerns then?
I can certainly understand your frustration, but keep in mind that Ben
probably doesn't read all of every thread (I know I don't). It's not
his fault that you took his silence to be assent. And remember, he's
not vetoing the change, he's just expressing some concerns.
Now, if some committer gave active approval to a proposed change, and
then turned around and rejected the patch when it was finally
submitted, that would be different :-). But that didn't happen here,
so the best thing is just to address Ben's concerns & bring him up to
speed on the discussion he missed (as you do excellently below).
> My understanding of the consensus among those who expressed an oppinion
> boils down to:
>
> * It can take a long time to get things into APR
> * APR is designed for a specific purpose so things we want may not be
> appropriate for inclusion.
> * If the APR people want to take OS specific code we write on-board then
> they are welcome to.
I haven't had a chance to look at the patch itself yet, but yeah,
we've sometimes written things in Subversion first and then later
moved them to APR.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 30 00:42:10 2003