On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador >> <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> het >>>>> volgende geschreven: >>>>> >>>>>> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: >>>>>>> +PEER=127.0.0.1 >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't seem like a very useful default. We also can't use the >>>>>> NTP pool by default, so this should copy the behaviour of the ntpd >>>>>> package in meta-networking and default to no peers, and not start if >>>>>> none are specified. >>>>> >>>>> And the initscript is missing LSB headers. >>>> >>>> Just like the other similar scripts. >>> >>> This does not mean we ought to make the problem worse so add it for >>> new ones. If you are in good mood, send a fix for the others too ;) >> >> I do not think this is a problem. Could you please point out what >> functionality it breaks? Send patches for the others, and I will make >> this cosmetic change for this one, too. Consistency is more important >> than a mess of different styles, especially when it comes to cosmetic >> changes like this. > > Koen and I think it is important. So consider this my NACK for the patch as > is.
You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, based on that you are not even a maintainer as far as I know. I also think that it is not constructive to give NACK without answering the questions, and only telling again "It is important". Please be more constructive and explain the real issue. That is a better way of convincing a contributor than telling the person it is bad what you are doing because it is bad. There was someone today publishing a blog post how important it is to become pragmatic to get things done. Currently, cosmetic changes are just in the way of getting things done. The feature shall be more important than cosmetic changes. I saw this frightening away contributors, and features actually not getting into projects. That being said, if you can explain your reasoning, and I find it reasonable and worthy, I will update it. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
