It's why apache and open source is so charming and why we all love this so much. :-)
cheers, Lee On 7 26 2020, at 10:04 , Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Peter Lee <peter...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Stefan, Rob, Gilles, Gary and all, > > > > Please calm. > > I was just talking that I'm so busy recently ( Too busy in the daytime that > > I got home after 12p.m. these days :( ) .I didn't check my mailbox after my > > last replay in this thread. Really sorry for my late reply. > > I'm not complaining. I personally like the dependency bot but I'm just not > > familiar with it yet. > > English is not my first language so I may misused some words. I'm sorry if > > I used some words that are not proper enough. > > You don’t have to apologize! There are a considerable number of folks on the > list whose second language is English. We’re happy to have everyone chime in. > It makes us a stronger community. :-) > -Rob > > Sincely, > > Lee > > > >> On 7 24 2020, at 5:47, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Stefan and all. > >> > >> 2020-07-24 8:35 UTC+02:00, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>: > >>>> On 2020-07-24, Rob Tompkins wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2020, at 10:16 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Also, how different is a bot proposing a dependency update from a human > >>>>> doing the same? The bot includes far more context about the update in > >>>>> the > >>>>> PR comment, too, which is super useful for determining whether or not > >>>>> the > >>>>> dependency is worth updating. You can even configure it to only notify > >>>>> about security updates if it’s too noisy. > >>> > >>>> I don’t understand how substantive forward progress on a project can be > >>>> considered noisy. It’s just audit. > >>> > >>> Oh my, please calm down. > >> > >> I didn't "feel" that any of the posts in this thread had an > >> angry tone, not any more than mine at the beginning of > >> the other thread. > >> > >> Peter's remark, as yours, as mine, makes 3 people asking a > >> simple question about an as yet unknown source of emails > >> (that could therefore be qualified as "unsolicited"). > >> > >> Perhaps the three of us needed that _prior_ discussion on > >> "dev@" (i.e. present the proposal) rather than an after the > >> fact terse statement akin to "go figure yourself". > >> > >> Perhaps we needed just that extra little time of a "human" > >> conversation to be convinced and not even blink at the > >> subsequent automated emails. > >> > >> So a list of "bot" statements (in MD format) is now a good > >> enough substitute for that "conversation" (?). > >> > >> That's the kind of "progress" which GitHub brings (along > >> with truly good things, I don't doubt, but which are not > >> what is being pointed at). > >> > >>> Peter just said he hasn't been reading mails for a few days, is > >>> overwhelmed now and will need time to review what has happened. He > >>> didn't complain, he was apologizing for not responding immediately - > >>> which he shouldn't feel was necessary IMHO. > >> > >> Certainly not he. > >> Regards, > >> Gilles > >> > >>> > >>> Stefan > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >
