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
>

Reply via email to