[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: grub-pe2elf

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: grub-pe2elf
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:30:22 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:29:18PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 11:53 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> > I personally think this is a hassle for nothing: we already have a
> > working cygwin toolchain. While I acknowledge it's not perfect it
> > works. And I propose not to touch it until it gives any maintainance
> > or technical problem. When it does then we may consider dropping or
> > limiting cygwin support. Until then this discussion is a waste of time
> > (IMO)
> I agree that there is no urgent need to remove grub-pe2elf (although the
> issue might come up essentially).

Indeed, now that we're in this situation, we can't revert this without
causing major inconvenience on Cygwin users.  We might still do it, but
I'd rather explore the other possibilities first.

> However, it's not so much a technical
> problem as an issue of trust.
> Committing code against the wish of maintainers should not be permitted.
> Those who do it should lose commit access.  They are welcome to
> contribute, but their patches will need to be committed by others.
> I haven't seen any apology or explanation in this thread.

Yes, this is what worries me the most.

Anyhow, now that we've made our point, and everyone knows the drill, I hope
that this kind of things don't happen again.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

reply via email to

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