Randy McMurchy wrote: > 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, I think you are being too strident in your messages. No one is going to implement a new system until it is completely checked out--before or after your comments tonight. Your characterization is way off base. "Didn't work" is far too strong a statement. The bug import ran into a data problem. Can it be fixed? Almost certainly. Will the system be used if it can't? No. Your reaction seems that a new system has to be 100% before a decision to try to use it can be made. 99.99% is not good enough for you. Jeremy has put together a prototype to allow devs to test the look and feel. If we didn't like it, the effort that is necessary to make it 100% is wasted. Lets try to support necessary changes to the infrastructure. By all means, raise issues where you see them, but try to have a positive approach: "How can *we* make this successful?" instead of "It doesn't work, grumble, grumble..." -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
