Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:| Angus, that seems like a perfect plan to me. I am going to follow this | very logic from now on. But if you continue to commit pathces that does several things at once, you have to prepare for battle. (This is part of the responsibility part of the process Angus and Asger proposes.)
Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that you cannot understand it?
And... it is better to send a patch (a patch with one part of a
cleanup, one logical change etc.) for review to the list, saying that
this will be committed in a short while "unless I get objections"
instead of barging on and just commiting. ("How to loose commit
privileges in 10 minutes 101.")
And this is part of what I don't like in your attitude. You are always menacing, always recalling that you are the boss and the others (me) should do nothing but following and say "OK daddy". Sorry but I think you should try to open yourself to the critics sometimes.
Please find in the archive a single patch that I committed without first asking the list for review.
| FYI, the main reason why my patches contained more that one "logical | change" is that I was bitten more than once by the lengthy review | process and I thought that Lars opinion was "gospel". But you should still consider my opinons as strong guidelines.
Now we go back two more steps.
| Anyway, I think it's very good that the commit and review process is | now agreed by everyone. It was a very interesting debate to read :-) If you noticed... both what Asger said, and what Angus said, is close to how we have worked for the last years... and not really different from what I am saying.
This very mails prove the contrary IMHO. It's surely is my bad English...
| So, many thanks to all and please let me the honor to put a final dot | at this discussion:| | dot.Hmm... I never read mails from bottom up...
?? I was trying to end the discussion. Abdel.
