1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:35:21 -0800 |
2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> PMS cannot be ran in such a way that one person stonewalling is |
4 |
> able to hold up the majority's will. That's always been a flaw w/ |
5 |
> how it was managed and has impacted the resultant spec several times |
6 |
> over. |
7 |
|
8 |
The majority were about to go and mandate an mtime solution that |
9 |
couldn't be used for compiled python modules. We should be going with |
10 |
what's right, not with the majority. Ramming something through on a |
11 |
majority is a last resort that should only be taken if a solution |
12 |
that's acceptable to everyone cannot be reached. |
13 |
|
14 |
And again: |
15 |
|
16 |
What's wrong with doing a careful, phased withdrawal of kdebuild-1? |
17 |
|
18 |
> Also, unless I'm on crack, the person leading PMS is fauli- I'd |
19 |
> expect he's the one who can pull the veto trick, not you. |
20 |
|
21 |
If *anyone* has any objections to patches, we resolve those objections |
22 |
before proceeding. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |