Re: Source changes
Gary Shingles wrote:
>
> I think lodging 'objections' to a proposed change with good documentation
> is healthy. Then perhaps rationalising the objections with further
> discussion and/or voting. Wiki-style is good, keeps everything together.
>
Of course, 'objection' is a far better word to use than 'veto' and probably
closer to what I really meant.
CChris wrote:
>Any looney tune could block anything for any kind of fancied up fallacy.
If you replace 'block' with 'delay', then yes, absolutely. Just as 'the boy who
cried wolf', anyone objecting excessively will quickly get ignored.
> a Wise Euphorians Council
Looking at the current list of 6 developers on sourceforge, I would have no
objection to a majority vote of them being final arbiter of any disputes.
>Further, the reasons you give as examples are certainly not enough to
>justify even a third of a veto. They certainly justify cooperative,
>incremental amendment, not stifling conservatism.
How about shoving a pile of untested mods into file i/o that Rob had just said
no to? The less said about my feelings on that the better.
Anyway, by veto, I meant the 'next weekend' part of an announcement "Barring
objections I will port these changes to the main trunk next weekend". Any
disagreement should be resolved before the changes are applied.
>Perhaps all iterpreters are not built right away, but Rob can do so,
On behalf of Rob may I say that is quite rude of you even to suggest that!
>and anyone with enough different OSes and compilers can just as well,
>running build.bat or buildu.
So, if it is that easy, why is it not done yet? You may find more people willing
to test if they do not have to install a C compiler and SVN client.
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
