| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Michał Górny: |
| 5 |
> Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 01:18:49 hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 6 |
> napisał(a): |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing |
| 9 |
>> shallow clone support is an improvement, so I vote against |
| 10 |
>> removing it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Then please provide patches that add proper support for that. The |
| 13 |
> changes were necessary to fix repeatedly reported bugs/requests |
| 14 |
> while the shallow clone code conflicted with them. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I will be happy to re-introduce them when I have time and proper |
| 17 |
> design. Complaining isn't going to help, you know. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I might, but before working on something it has to be discussed first. |
| 21 |
I won't put effort into something without knowing if it's for nothing |
| 22 |
(e.g. maintainer disagreement or refusing patches because of coding |
| 23 |
style). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So yes, complaining helps to make clear what we want. Every bug report |
| 26 |
is in fact a complaint. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
There is no rush from my side since I still use the old eclass. I was |
| 29 |
just confused of your way to move this through which did not make |
| 30 |
clear if you even think of reintroducing it since you said "I don't |
| 31 |
feel like maintaining the extra code is worth the effort" and did not |
| 32 |
respond to ulm's and my comment. |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTC0NNAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzckMH/37BCLThG/8Q9FubLneEF5OY |
| 36 |
ahwwGMqcj2cWNg4eR7tVAIEqlSn+kVg3BKYV+eIFA83Zi3BLR18O2HRaegKM4N/E |
| 37 |
IrzJLaACdYaZNJgRsi7I0WNcvUFlrYaCpq4xqf804J/r+7PCRngRnZS7uijG38jz |
| 38 |
LwwWyIzhVEkGo3S5MO4zgfXkZkkYPVhRoJqotMCslv+Lg13awgRwfadUfgzKRRZU |
| 39 |
If9QR0dzZRo5ZBI9mgtwSK3HqcxQtphX+tzxMGtiVJklN1th8ny0CdSjyXqS0M0B |
| 40 |
XttIOII/cX2xHxLbYJ+NC/XczrEzKLGIqZEmv5hKsVUolyTJ0rWM6qVLDdXiIlo= |
| 41 |
=vDC+ |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives