[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ousting bad people (was: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup sign
From: |
Kieren MacMillan |
Subject: |
Re: Ousting bad people (was: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046)) |
Date: |
Mon, 3 May 2010 11:11:24 -0400 |
Hi David,
>> For the record, I am appalled at David's etiquette -- which is to say,
>> complete lack thereof
>
> Thanks for that important observation.
> It is likely to improve the quality of contributions.
Choose your own response here: #1 if [by some fluke of mao] you're not being
your usual sarcastic, condescending, and socially-inept self, and #2 if you're
being your usual sarcastic, condescending, socially-inept self.
#1. That's great!
#2. It may not improve your interest in contributing -- which you appear to
believe is the only way of improving the quality of contributions overall --
but it had a small chance of improving the interaction between you and the
other Lilypond developers, which had a small chance of improving the flow of
contributions into Lilypond, which had a small chance of improving the overall
base code.
> Having my chains yanked is not something I deal with gracefully.
Funny... I'm still waiting to see one thing that you *do* deal with gracefully.
> There is no shortage of them: they are easier to recruit than coders.
I'd rather have a civil community built around an excellent but
slightly-defective and slowly-improving Lilypond than an uncivil bitchfest
built around an excellent but only-slightly-less-defective and
slight-more-quickly-improving Lilypond, which is what you are in danger of
fostering.
Regards,
Kieren.
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), (continued)
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), dak, 2010/05/02
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2010/05/02
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), David Kastrup, 2010/05/02
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2010/05/02
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), David Kastrup, 2010/05/02
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2010/05/02
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), David Kastrup, 2010/05/03
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2010/05/03
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), Kieren MacMillan, 2010/05/03
- Ousting bad people (was: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046)), David Kastrup, 2010/05/03
- Re: Ousting bad people (was: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046)),
Kieren MacMillan <=
- Re: Ousting bad people, David Kastrup, 2010/05/03
- Re: Ousting bad people, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/05/03
- our development mess, Graham Percival, 2010/05/03
- Re: Ousting bad people, David Kastrup, 2010/05/03
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/03
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), David Kastrup, 2010/05/19
- Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), David Kastrup, 2010/05/02
Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), dak, 2010/05/03
Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), dak, 2010/05/15
Re: Don't hardcode a limited set of markup signatures. (issue969046), nicolas . sceaux, 2010/05/16