At 12:37 PM 1/2/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> In this case, I agree with Jeff's commit. I also disagree that you can >> veto a veto (which I consider Jeff's reversion of this test to be.) >> >> It was introduced as a pedantic test to try to illustrate to you, Ryan, >> the futility of making all platforms behave *identically*. That isn't >> reasonable or feasible without adding a ton of extra cycles. >> >> Apparently this mental exercise didn't have the effects I had hoped. > >The "mental exercise" is pointless and not appreciated. I expect more out >of this group of people than childish games. And yes, that is harsh, and >yes I do mean it. Will, we had a two e-mail conversation where nobody >else participated and you decided to back-out your changes.
At least for the foreseeable future, that will be s/else //. There is no "decision" involved in backing out vetoed code, period. >You didn't wait for more comments or try to change my mind. I'll spare myself the futility of that effort. >If this test was meant to make me change my mind, it was a stupid way >to go about it. Rational arguments almost always work better than trying >to play mind games. We have a long history of asking "Show me the code". Code speaks wonders. I'm really tired of the general tone, volume and posture of arguments on dev@ that happen in lieu of productive discussions. The productive discussion requires that all individuals are listening, and I've found that often isn't the case. Points should be made pro and con, and the concensus that emerges is based on which list of evils we are most willing to put up with. Or, best yet, the third alternative comes to light that doesn't share the problems of either option #1 or #2. Too many 'discussions' on the list follow the "That's Just Wrong", "-1", "Please revert.", posture instead, which makes participating in the discussion list less than enjoyable. I'm not saying I'm not equally guilty to anyone else on this list, but one of my resolutions is to enjoy the projects and organizations I participate in, and to try to make them enjoyable for others (so far as my own actions have to do with that.) Grandma always said, "If you don't have anything nice to say... say nothing." That's pretty much my reaction to the tone of the test suite "discussions". I'm happy to fix bugs, consistify results, clean up for style and generally contribute new features. I'm even not against crafting new tests. But I'm really past discussing any aspect of the test suite. I'll let the one of you argue it out amongst yourself. As you point out, we were the only two arguing, so my dropping out of the debate leaves the pleasant sound of one hand clapping. If I have anything further to say, I'll say it with code. Please, feel free to simply back out test code you disagree with, as I won't be debating the merits, and it saves the the list one fewer confrontational note. If you prefer that I don't commit code to test/ I'm fine with that as well. Bill p.s. ... folks, cvs is a record-keeping forum, not a debate forum. Can we all please try to avoid cc'ing cvs@ (or remove from the cc.) Discussion belongs on dev@ ... deltas belong on [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.p.s. ... I have no issue with Karl and your suggestion to introduce a feature macro, but I'd ask someone with samba to try and open an nfs mounted NTFS directory from Unix, just to see if this can be a platform check v.s. a filesystem check..
