Re: [PEPr] Comment on Networking::Net_Growl

The name was used since few monthes, phases will perhaps come. Case it is a real proposal, I don't see no reason to apply different rules because Mansion has some past here. Should I mention he forgot to build an own QF list or forgot to answer on the general list ? Can you explain we are overcrowd by those messages. I did not say this package is senseless but that it never allows to overpass proposals rules. I got insulted as I tried to arrange some uneasy situation. I want to see code, now. I really hate to see people profit on the comunity while being absent. -- toggg P.S. I don't drink tea. Please, don't send me a private message first, I got quite in the trap :) Pierre wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:31:23 +0100 bertrand@toggg.com (bertrand Gugger) wrote:

I feel really abused by the way you use pear. Don't use it this way on your site, or put some direct links on sources in your proposal. Or tell me pear belongs to you and I should just shut up. For those interested, I still did not read any code there as I prefer to do it on some "official" way.

Toggg, please take a big breath, a tea or something else, but cool down. There is nothing wrong in this proposal. This package started its life outside pear and Bertrand thinks now it is time to bring it to pear. Whether your mail was a trigger does not matter, this proposal is valid. You do not like it? Vote -1 in the vote phase. --Pierre