[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:00:46 +0200 |
On 08/21/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>
>> Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
>> the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(
>>
>>> If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
>>> harm to the free software world
>>>
>> Which harm are you referring to? Honest question. The fact that me
>> and Paolo disagree (politely!) on some issues should not be taken as
>> some sort of sign that the community is "split" or "quarrelsome". In
>> fact, I highly value his input, and his opinion as well (even where
>> it differs from mine).
>
> The discussion is good as long as it is constrained to the right place.
> The harm comes from consuming so much time from so many people due to
> duplicated email messages.
>
Ah, OK. In this, you are painfully right.
Regards,
Stefano
- Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG, (continued)
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- [PATCH] news: about pattern rules and old-style suffix rules (was: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG), Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/22
- Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG, Bob Friesenhahn, 2012/08/21
- Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG, Bob Friesenhahn, 2012/08/21
- Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG,
Stefano Lattarini <=
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/22