| 1 |
not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:40:01 -0400 |
| 4 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked |
| 7 |
> hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch |
| 8 |
> the daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream |
| 9 |
> developers (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've |
| 10 |
> done the work for them... ;] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:39:16 -0400 |
| 14 |
"Eric Brown" <ebrown@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked |
| 17 |
> hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch |
| 18 |
> the daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream |
| 19 |
> developers (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've |
| 20 |
> done the work for them... ;] |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm beginning to suspect Eric and Chris are the same person. Prove they |
| 24 |
aren't - show evidence of them independently in the same room at the |
| 25 |
same time ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(and being a mid-stream developer, I know *I* like working patches more |
| 28 |
than 'fix your junk, it broke' reports) |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives