The main problem here is that the less one can do when collaborating to a project is to respect others work. Then nobody should ever commit anything that touch the code he's not in charge without previously formally do a proposal, wait for reactions and discuss, taking care of others remarks, especially when this code might break some features that are used and mandatory. If no reaction, yes the thing can be commited with no modification. If there are reactions, they have to be taken in care or at least discussed (the contradictors may be wrong, for sure).
There were no proposal sent on this list. I did not received even a single mail telling me there'll be changes in the code I maintain. Don't say "it was discussed a lot and approved" when you did not even try to contact one of the main developpers. Apart the fact that the commited code implements broken concepts, if one is not able to respect other people and their work, he just have to start its own project and work on its own, not to pretend collaborating. Mr Paul Brook did break the PREP and heathrow machines while doing changes in the PCI code. There were some posts on this list reporting this and he never even tried to fix what he broke. And now he's complaining "I cannot test as it does not work". Looks like a bad joke, no ? Today, he's breaking more features without even taking care of the implications of he's doing. Am I supposed to think this attitude is a normal and respectuous one ? I'm sorry that I can't. This way of doing is to be fixed or the project is dead or will become Mr Paul Brook exclusive toy. If this is what he wants, he has to tell it, do not allow anybody else to make any change in its "personal code" and let me remove all the contributions I've made for years. Regards. -- J. Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Never organized
