1 |
On 08-10-2011 18:33:15 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question |
3 |
> your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected |
4 |
> cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this |
5 |
> "attack" either. |
6 |
|
7 |
If you feel I'm attacking you, then I apologise. My personal feeling is |
8 |
that my response was very mild and not directed to you. I haven't |
9 |
responded to your earlier "fastened lastriting" messages on purpose. |
10 |
Now that Matt brought it up for this package, I just liked to point out |
11 |
that we have a policy, that was made for some reason, and that you |
12 |
violated it. |
13 |
|
14 |
I realise that it may look like I'm picking just on you. I'm not. This |
15 |
is the risk you run as one of the top committers of Gentoo. I think you |
16 |
do a lot of good work, and I hope you'll keep on doing so for a long |
17 |
time. |
18 |
|
19 |
You just tend to change rules as you see fit every once in a while, |
20 |
which is a bad thing for Gentoo. I don't like all policies either, but |
21 |
I stick to them (for as far as I'm aware of them), because if we all |
22 |
would start to ignore what we don't like, then what would be the point |
23 |
in having those policies at first? |
24 |
|
25 |
Again, this doesn't mean that each policy in its current form is |
26 |
de-facto the best thing or something like that. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Fabian Groffen |
31 |
Gentoo on a different level |