Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:23 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Doing it right Message-ID: <xzpy8q2fbec.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <200403151348.i2FDmuew007550@dungeon.home> (Stephen McKay's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:48:56 %2B1000") References: <p060204f5bc750679b827@[128.113.24.47]> <200403140716.i2E7GDKa007204@dungeon.home> <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> <200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366@dungeon.home> <xzpish6gsvn.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200403151348.i2FDmuew007550@dungeon.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> writes: > I think it is a legitimate (and helpful) thing for developers to question > the technical merits of changes even if they aren't personally contributi= ng > much code. It can't simply be the case that whoever has the time to comm= it > the most code changes wins. Changes must be in the long term interests of > the project. Hence questioning code changes can be as much a contribution > as writing new code if it avoids a future problem. Sorry, but you get zero points for criticizing this decision after the fact when it had already been discussed to death for literally months before it was implemented, and Garance spent uncounted hours writing and testing the transition scripts and documentation. No points either for criticizing a decision which you clearly did not bother to learn enough about to even discover that it did not affect you. Now, if your message had been something like the following, this thread might have turned out very differently: "Are you planning something similar for i386? In that case, I think we should place more emphasis on backward compatibility..." DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpy8q2fbec.fsf>