| 1 |
On 2013-10-21 6:48 AM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Again. This power is overstated and overtrusted. As for "rip it out at |
| 3 |
> its roots" he has no ability to do that, only refuse to merge it in |
| 4 |
> his tree. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Which I believe is a much bigger deal than you seem to think. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> But that's only if he bothers to read it. With all the other |
| 9 |
> stuff he's working on, he signs off less commits than all the other |
| 10 |
> maintainers do. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
<sigh> irrelevant, because I was talking about something that was |
| 13 |
discovered *after* it was merged... obviously, if something is merged |
| 14 |
that creates a problem (or loud complaints, or whatever), at *that* |
| 15 |
point he will certainly take the time to 'read it' and decide if there |
| 16 |
is anything to it... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> The news sites love making a big deal of him flaming this or that |
| 19 |
> developer or company, but I can't remember that ever stopping anyone |
| 20 |
> from doing what they wanted. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Lol... really? You don't consider him rejecting a patch, whether or not |
| 23 |
it is rejected 'nicely' or not - 'stopping' said dev from 'doing what |
| 24 |
they wanted (ie, get their patch merged)? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Anyway, it really doesn't matter, so no reason to continue this |
| 27 |
discussion... |
Archives