Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:12:20PM +0200, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > >> So my rant was not against Horde, but rather against the way you guys tried > >> to force a developer to rewrite his code to use one of your package, which I > >> didn't want because this move would limit the proposed package features and > >> because IMO things should be done the other way round. > > > > None of us ever suggested that Clay be forced to rewrite his code to > > use one of our packages. That kind of statement is inflammatory, so > > please be more careful with your choice of language, Bertrand. > > Please remember that what takes you two seconds to write takes me five > minutes in English. So I am as careful as I can. Granted, but as a native English speaker, I have no other option but to assume that the words you wrote are what you intended. I'm sorry that can make things difficult. Besides, I suspect you fully understood the meaning of "force" in this context. > > To be clear (for posterity's sake), all that we (Horde) were asking is > > if Clay would consider merging his work into the Horde_VC package. > > So, are you going to ask this for every proposal or is it just that one ? > Manuel Lemos used to do the same on every occasion, I don't see any good out > of that. I will continue to ask PEAR developers to consider that option when it makes sense and when it saves us from needless code duplication, yes. There's plenty of work to be done in the PEAR community, and I feel that rewriting code that already exists is not the best use of our developers' resources. (Note that I make this statement generally; I'm not commenting on the specific case of SCM_SVN, although it might apply.) > > He said he wasn't interested, and that was fine. > > No, people actually insisted even after Clay said no. Those were not Horde people. And, again, "insisted" is a strong word. -- Jon Parise (jon@php.net) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)