*** PLEASE STOP ***

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

> Sorry about that. I was a bit ticked off and that may have showed.
> I do intend to be positive, but it is hard sometimes not to push
> back.

Well until everyone STOPS pushing back at each other, calms down, and
focuses on code, this is going to continue to spiral, until it breaks.  And
that is the last thing anyone wants.

> > Help is always appreciated, but at this point
> > you're driving Peter bonkers,

Both of those are are pretty fair assessments.  But everyone probably owes
everyone an apology for SOMETHING around here lately.  So I'll say it for
everyone, so that no one has to step up and admit that he or she might have
stepped over a line somewhere: I'M SORRY.  WE'RE ALL SORRY.

Now ... let's not have any more personal attacks.  No more calling someone
else a liar.  No more revisiting the past.  We've got code in the CVS now,
and we want to move forward FROM HERE.

Computers run code.  They don't care about egos, personality, or even
perceptions of intelligent life.  They just run the code.  It either works,
or it doesn't.

As I understand it, the rules are that if someone, anyone, delivers good
code then we are supposed to have a good reason for rejecting it.  On the
other hand, the rule is that if code is submitted by someone, anyone, that
we don't believe we can in good conscience support, then we are justified to
give our technical reaons and reject it.

	--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: *** PLEASE STOP ***

[Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>>Sorry about that. I was a bit ticked off and that may have showed.
>>I do intend to be positive, but it is hard sometimes not to push
>>back.
>>    
>>
>
>Well until everyone STOPS pushing back at each other, calms down, and
>focuses on code, this is going to continue to spiral, until it breaks.  And
>that is the last thing anyone wants.
>
>  
>
>>>Help is always appreciated, but at this point
>>>you're driving Peter bonkers,
>>>      
>>>
>
>Both of those are are pretty fair assessments.  But everyone probably owes
>everyone an apology for SOMETHING around here lately.  So I'll say it for
>everyone, so that no one has to step up and admit that he or she might have
>stepped over a line somewhere: I'M SORRY.  WE'RE ALL SORRY.
>
>Now ... let's not have any more personal attacks.  No more calling someone
>else a liar.  No more revisiting the past.  We've got code in the CVS now,
>and we want to move forward FROM HERE.
>
>Computers run code.  They don't care about egos, personality, or even
>perceptions of intelligent life.  They just run the code.  It either works,
>or it doesn't.
>
>As I understand it, the rules are that if someone, anyone, delivers good
>code then we are supposed to have a good reason for rejecting it.  On the
>other hand, the rule is that if code is submitted by someone, anyone, that
>we don't believe we can in good conscience support, then we are justified to
>give our technical reaons and reject it.
>

+1

But I'm really really impressed with the James level progress over here.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: *** PLEASE STOP ***

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

> It is surely part of the process that minor faults will
> be be corrected by commiters or contributed patches

Of course.  Bugs happen all the time.  Let he who has written no bugs ...
:-)

	--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: *** PLEASE STOP ***

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

> As I understand it, the rules are that if someone, anyone, delivers good
> code then we are supposed to have a good reason for rejecting it.

Seems reasonable to me, under the circumstances, if a change is shown to offer improvements over existing code, and is reasonably implemented, I think any objecton would have to be well grounded.
(It is surely part of the process that minor faults will be be corrected by commiters or contributed patches.)

d.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>