On 8/24/06, Karl Fogel <kfogel@google.com> wrote:
> "Garrett Rooney" <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> > On 8/24/06, Max Bowsher <maxb1@ukf.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > and since this is a UI thing with no clear answer Brane can just as
> >> > reasonably respond with "no, I disagree, you're wrong". There is no
> >> > way to win this argument in a reasonable amount of time.
> >>
> >> I don't want to win it. I want to reach a mutually acceptable
> >> conclusion, and happen to think that my viewpoint has sufficient
> >> supporting factual grounds to make it a serious possible outcome.
> >
> > Whatever. I've stated my opinions multiple times, and you still are
> > missing the point. Go argue about your useless little issue, just
> > please try and keep it from dealying the release even more than it
> > has. Some of us would actually like to USE 1.4.0 sometime this
> > century.
>
> Ur. Sigh. I'd like to see 1.4.0 too, but why pile on Max like this?
>
> Even late in a release cycle, there's still a big difference between a
> bikesheddy bugfix question, and a bikesheddy option name question.
> The former is not an interface for which we will have to maintain
> compatibility, the latter is.
>
> If you want to complain about something, complain about the fact that
> there's no good way to resolve the issue. But please don't complain
> about Max's timing; this was Max's last chance to head off what he saw
> as a poor choice of option name. I don't blame him for asking the
> question, impending release or no.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree Karl, because I do think that in
the 11th hour of a release cycle there is a different standard as to
what is worth trying to get changed and what should just be left well
enough alone because it honestly doesn't matter.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 25 01:32:16 2006