On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 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. Take a second look Will. I specifically stated in all of my e-mails that it was a non-veto. > 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. I have never said that I didn't want you to commit to test/. I rather like that more people are getting involved. Tell you what. I seem to be getting on everybody's bad side again. Have fun with APR. I have far too many projects to work on to spend time on this project anymore. Ryan
