Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 01/18/06 01:53 CST: > I read it differently as giving an example how fast the conversion could > be done. If he said "lets do it right now" and didn't say "if I start > tomorrow" I would agree with how you read into it.
Please, c'mon Justin, I'm just trying to make a point here. My point being that there's been a call to make a change, the change was known to be unachievable by the initiator due to bugs in the software, yet he still says, "let's start tomorrow". It ain't right. He knew there were problems, yet was willing to start a process. This is wrong. And in my opinion, it is deceiving the community. You simply can't continue with a project if you know there are show-stoppers standing in the way. > That is not correct. Trac itself works prefectly fine. A module to > import bugs didn't work for one bug and stopped the import. Just need > to solve the import problem, it doesn't mean all of Trac is broken. Not > fair in my opinion. It is not fair that the initiator of the project didn't make it clear to everyone. And don't say that wasn't the case, see DJ's posts earlier tonight where once he found out there were import problems, he immediately retracted his vote for the project. He found out *tonight*. Thankfully. Jeremy has known since the beginning that it didn't work and made no effort to fix it, or tell anyone about it. > Because you and others can review what is being suggested? That is > after all what he asked in this thread. It is a RFC afterall. No.....!!!!! It was, thankfully only was, being talked about being implemented tomorrow. C'mon Justin, either say you are full of **** or say that the proposal was dreadfully close to be implemented tomorrow, in which case, a product that doesn't work would begin implementation. It would have been started! C'mon, don't try to cover for anything, just see the light. The project would have started, *WITH SOMEONE KNOWING THERE WERE DEFECTS*. This is not good. > I think you are blowing this out of proportion. This is a RFC, Jeremy > couldn't import all the bugs in his first try, So he should have made this very clear to everyone. And obviously he chose not to, and chose not to make it an issue. Case closed. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 02:06:01 up 115 days, 11:30, 3 users, load average: 1.01, 0.76, 0.44 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
