[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3)
From: |
James Blackwell |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3) |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:50:54 -0400 |
>> From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)
>> But while we're on the subject of "submission branches", I think they're
>> a bad idea. Sure, "submission branches" make your job a lot easier. Did
>> you stop to consider whether "submission branches" make the work of
>> submitters easier or more difficult?
>
Then Tom Lord wrote:
> Stopped, considered, and made feature plans to make sure that it'll be
> easy.
Yes; there is ongoing discusion in this area, but consensus hasn't been
reached.
> > I've tried "submission branches" and in my experience they're a pain in
> > the rear. I personally suspect that you're pushing "submission branches"
> > as a political tool to discourage diverging (and eventually forking)
> > branches. What better way to control development, then to encourage
> > submitters to keep their patches scattered around in different branches?
> > That way, patches aren't concentrated into development trees that pose a
> > potential threat to tla (a.k.a. "Tom Lord's Arch").
>
> You are wrong and are being rude.
No, I am not wrong. That is exactly what I suspect. I also don't think
I'm being rude.
I would be more than willing to listen to any rational argument that
proves my suspicions are unfounded.
Tom Lord wrote:
>> > Save those thoughts for the individual threads they'll be relevent in.
Then yours truly (James Blackwell) wrote:
>> Pardon? Are you telling me what to think when?
Then Tom Lord replied:
> Um... no. I'm saying that if you want me to consider those points in
> detail you should remember them until it's closer to the time to work
> on those details.
>
Sure, I'd like for you to consider them, as you're the current arch
project lead. After all, my post was in direct response to _your_ post!
Even if you don't consider the ideas, they may still be relevant,
particularly if a consensus is reached. For example, they could be used
by the next arch project lead.
You're not trying to submarine me, are you?
--
James Blackwell Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more! each person you meet a compliment!
GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Tom Lord, 2004/07/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Andrew Suffield, 2004/07/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), James Blackwell, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Jan Hudec, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Tom Lord, 2004/07/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Any CM guy looking for a job?, nadim, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Andrew Suffield, 2004/07/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), James Blackwell, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Tom Lord, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3),
James Blackwell <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Miles Bader, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), James Blackwell, 2004/07/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Miles Bader, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), James Blackwell, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Tom Lord, 2004/07/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), James Blackwell, 2004/07/07
- peace rocks Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Tom Lord, 2004/07/07
- against paranoia Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Tom Lord, 2004/07/07
- Re: against paranoia Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3), Stephen J. Turnbull, 2004/07/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] what's all the fuss about merge requests?, Tom Lord, 2004/07/07