Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/rescue/rescue Makefile Message-ID: <20030905162408.C90946@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> In-Reply-To: <20030905212233.GB590@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <42548.1062488547@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030902004917.S6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F58B8B7.30107@tcoip.com.br> <20030905110128.Y8003@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030905135542.M90946@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> <20030905212233.GB590@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> Yes, you can. The agreement is reached when everybody accepts the
> outcome. This is unrelated to whether everybody likes the outcome.
I would argue that we're now discussing two different things....
consensus on the result, versus consensus on what the desired result is,
and the method(s) of achieving it. However, I won't quibble further.
> > Don't take this the wrong way, but with an attitude like that, how do
> > you get out of bed in the morning?
>
> Willpower, eased by the habit of getting out of bed in the afternoon.
LOL... touche.
> > The consensus was that we'd use
> > seperators for all NEW knobs, and go back and deal with the rest if time
> > allows.
>
> Yes, the first part of the sentence I remember. I can't recall the
> second part. If my memory is failing on me and we did in fact reach
> that consensus, then there's nothing to argue about. Otherwise we
> still need to get clear ruling on that last part.
As promised, I posted my bikeshed blueprints for this on -arch.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030905162408.C90946>