Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> I was questioning the content, not attacking the format. I don't buy
> the idea that this is a simple feature, that's why I'd like to see
> more discussion about alternatives. And I found it "interesting" that
> there was talk of a consensus less then 48 hours after the original
> proposal was posted. What's the rush?
/me faces the passive voice head on :-)
That was my doing, but my consensus probe was just that -- a probe.
As it turned out, the momentary pause in the conversation did not
indicate consensus, so now we're discussing more. Which is great (for
example, I hadn't even thought of the potential importance of template
accessibility when disconnected from the server).
If you're suggesting that premature calls for consensus can be a bad
thing, I totally agree. But don't read too much into a simple bad
call. In this case, it doesn't seem to have hurt us much, and may
even have done some good. No harm, no foul, I hope. I certainly
don't want a rushed design either.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 19 23:11:04 2005