| 1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:02:41 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > We also don't know when we'll have a spec of what EAPI 3 is, so |
| 5 |
> > there's no point in tinkering with PMS until we do. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Come on. Renaming from 3 to 4 is trivial. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
But dumping in a bunch of "we don't know" sections into the main branch |
| 10 |
for 3 is completely against existing practice. We very deliberately |
| 11 |
didn't do that for works in progress for previous EAPIs. Why change now? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> >> > We also don't have approved summaries of any of the meetings |
| 14 |
> >> > where these things happened. |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> And what is [1] then? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > Something that wasn't there when I sent the original email, as you |
| 19 |
> > know very well. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> It was on the council page when I read your mail. And is this in any |
| 22 |
> way relevant? We have a summary now. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Because your sarcastic reply suggests some kind of inaccuracy on my |
| 25 |
part, whereas in fact you're trying to pull a fast one. A correct and |
| 26 |
appropriate response would be "This has now been fixed [1]". For |
| 27 |
someone who complains about a lack of goodwill when people point out |
| 28 |
problems with your patches, you're certainly not going out of the way |
| 29 |
to set a better example. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives