[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-dev] Another revno.h silly commit by rob

From: Rob Savoye
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Another revno.h silly commit by rob
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:44:47 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 12/09/10 10:38, strk wrote:

> The commit log sounds good. Only problem is that the old code was 
> already doin that (only updating revno.h if something changed) while 
> the new code forces rebuilding:

  The new code only rebuilds revno.h after a revision change, ie... a
git commit or git pull.

> Of course he also removed the use of conditionals to check existance
> of git:
> I guess "it was better before"

  Better is a matter of opinion... When we can't decide, it's up to me.
Sorry, but that's the way it is. Otherwise we deadlock...

>  I hope Rob will learn to work in a team.

  I'm not the one reverting changes. Reverting changes is not the proper
behavior for a team member. Reverting changes is like stomping on
somebodies toes. I am completely part of a team, I fixed a number of
bugs yesterday for several other people. That's what a team, does, is
works together... You have this amazing ability to accuse others of the
same behaviors you exhibit.

  Course now on top of revno.h breakage, I have to deal with the new
input device breakage. Since I'm working on the Framebuffer code right
now, this is a problem... I am willing to give any developer the benefit
of doubt on things like this, but I expect the same courtesy. Your bad
attitude and personal attacks are counter productive.

  I thought that was what I was doing when I *modified* the revno.h
target, to fix your changes to work the way they need to. Otherwise you
shut down my whole build farm. That seemed important enough to go fix
the revno.h target.

  Considering I wrote that, including the revno.h target,
and all the packaging code, have maintained it since it was added, I
think I have the ability to make the right changes to that makefile target.

  Let's drop this thread and go back to work *together*... I'm done
arguing about it.

        - rob -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]