| 1 |
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:08:01 -0700 (PDT) |
| 2 |
"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable |
| 4 |
> > way of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference |
| 5 |
> > to developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone |
| 8 |
> changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That |
| 9 |
> would not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things |
| 10 |
> in the tree. However we have this fun system where you have to |
| 11 |
> incessantly contact the maintainer in order to get anything done lest |
| 12 |
> they cry and moan and run to the council because 'you touched their |
| 13 |
> precious package'. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's |
| 16 |
face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a |
| 17 |
better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going |
| 18 |
to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official |
| 19 |
proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the |
| 20 |
Council has already given them authority to do that... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives