Hello;
You are right. My comparison was insensible and way out of line.
I apologize and I will take a break from the lists for a while.
Pedro.
Everything has been said in this thread, Godwin´s law has been invoked.
Unless new information is injected, I ask you let it go and stop this
thread.
Regards,
Andre
Am 03.02.2013 03:33, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
...
So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
urgent please
take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
"Hello Dave, I think this is a reall
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial
> reply.
>
> My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For
> example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not corr
I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial
reply.
My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For
example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct
and so I removed it..."
That is all I'm going to say abo
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
>> Da: Rob Weir
> ...
>>>
>>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
>> urgent please
>>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>>
>>> "H
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Rob Weir
...
>>
>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
> urgent please
>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>
>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it fo
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Da: Andrea Pescetti
>> ...
>>>
>>>Joe Schaefer wrote:
This tempest in a teapot is not about
a wayward revert as you did not completely
b
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>>
>> Da: Andrea Pescetti
> ...
>>
>>Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> This tempest in a teapot is not about
>>> a wayward revert as you did not completely
>>> back out the commit- you just patched it.
>>
>>Exactly. It is
>
> Da: Andrea Pescetti
...
>
>Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> This tempest in a teapot is not about
>> a wayward revert as you did not completely
>> back out the commit- you just patched it.
>
>Exactly. It is rather clear from here:
>
>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoff
Joe Schaefer wrote:
This tempest in a teapot is not about
a wayward revert as you did not completely
back out the commit- you just patched it.
Exactly. It is rather clear from here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h
>Subject: Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 -
>/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>
>On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Messaggio originale -
>>> Da: Tim Williams
>> ...
>>>
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
>> Da: Tim Williams
> ...
>>>
>>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>>> then for us to have the t
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Tim Williams
...
>>
>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>> and did not act
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
wrote:
> If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal
> ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately
> modified before review, which is what was done.
>
> So if I seem something that is wrong
If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal
ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately
modified before review, which is what was done.
So if I seem something that is wrong, should I fix it, or should I ask
the person that made the initial er
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2013,
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is
> room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to
> make an adjustment.
>
> If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is o
Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is
room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to
make an adjustment.
If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is ok. My point is
about letting time pass.
You do a lot for Op
On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> -1
I've reverted
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
-1
>>>
>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>
>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>
> Not
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> -1
>>
>
> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> -1
>
I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
-Rob
> Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
> you think you are protecting the OpenOffice
-1
Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your
intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually
risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark
registration is expl
The next shed to bike ;-)
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: wave
> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
> New Revision: 1441659
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
> Log:
> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
>
> Modified:
>openoffice/site/tr
28 matches
Mail list logo
