[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: r21207 (Renaming --no-svndiff1 to --pre-1.4-compatible)

From: Max Bowsher <maxb1_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2006-08-26 17:08:07 CEST

Branko Čibej wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>> My issue is that you feel the conversation was ended and I don't think
>>> that had happened yet. We knew that Brane wasn't happy with it, he
>>> never had an opportunity to reply to your 'logically countered' reply,
>>> and we just went ahead and merged it in r21223.
>> I don't feel that the conversation has ended, and Brane still has an
>> opportunity reply.
> I didn't reply to an "I'm right because I'm right" argument about such a
> triviality because the only thing I could come up with looked
> suspiciously like a flame, and I didn't want to pour kerosene on a
> thread that's already lasted about 10x longer than would be even
> remotely useful.

IMO, at least, my argument was logically reasoned, not "I'm right
because I'm right". If you disagree with me, at least explain why, so I
can learn from experience and avoid producing arguments that people
misinterpret as "I'm right because I'm right" in the future.

>> I went ahead and merged it because I think it's better that we have an
>> rc5 that we _might_ accept, than no rc at all whilst this conversation
>> continues.

> You went ahead and merged something that other people had voiced serious
> objections about.

Other people had voiced serious objections to the *timing* of the
change, that is true. However, objections to the change itself had been
raised only by you, and I had replied presenting counter-arguments.

We had a RC that needed rolling, and I had the choice between merging,
and producing an RC that you _might_ decide to object to, or not
merging, resulting in an RC that I would _definitely_ object to.

If you wish to call for 1.4.0 final to be delayed whilst this point is
pursued, please do so - it is what I would have done had the change
_not_ been merged.

> That was formally correct, as there were no -1's in
> STATUS -- this not being a technical issue, I thought responding on list
> would be more appropriate than vetoing the merge. IMNSHO you did bloody
> well abuse your privilege and my trust. Please don't do it again.

I plead innocent to these charges.
If you come to the Summit, perhaps we can attempt to clear the air, there.


Received on Sat Aug 26 17:09:19 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.