| 1 |
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 17:23:23 Dane Smith wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/07/11 17:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:47:29 Dane Smith wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> To be perfectly blunt, no small part of what caused this current fiasco |
| 5 |
> >> was this exact attitude. I don't like the current policy either, it's |
| 6 |
> >> far too wide. However, if you go back and look at why it even *got* to |
| 7 |
> >> council, it was because you (and others), decided that they weren't |
| 8 |
> >> going to give any regard to the requests of some of their fellow devs |
| 9 |
> >> about ChangeLogging removals. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > how is this relevant at all ? i dont find value in these entries, other |
| 12 |
> > people do. my attitude towards how worthless they are has 0 bearing on |
| 13 |
> > the policy towards creating it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> There never would have been any such policy had people been a little |
| 16 |
> considerate of the requests of others. This could have ended like so: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
sorry, but that's utter bs. there is a disconnect between what you find |
| 19 |
valuable and what i find valuable. all you're doing is assuming your position |
| 20 |
is right and mine is wrong and thus i'm in the wrong and thus any disagreement |
| 21 |
that causes strife after that is my fault. if common ground between |
| 22 |
developers cannot be attained, then it is the council's job to step in and |
| 23 |
make a decision. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> And yes, it should be automated. I agree. Doesn't change the current |
| 26 |
> situation. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
of course it does. it makes the current situation irrelevant. |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives