On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: >> In my head, it wasn't a reversion -- it was a revision. I honestly thought >> that you'd be okay with the change, having taken this statement: > > I think if you place yourself in my shoes, I think perhaps you'd > understand why I view it as a "reversion". I made the change, you > said, "please revert", we start to discuss, and in the middle of the > discussion, you just revert the change anyway. > > At the least, I think it would have been appropriate for you to > suggest the change and then I could have said "Sure, that's fine - go > ahead and commit." It wasn't like I wasn't trying to engage in a > dialogue to see what would be better. Instead, I feel that you just > did what you wanted to do and didn't really listen to me at all. > > Maybe I'm dead wrong, but that's certainly how I feel at the moment. -- > justin
I'm really hesitant to jump in here, but I think it's warranted. As a (somewhat) impartial observer, it appears to me that this discussion has gotten a bit out of hand. I know both of you guys personally, and pretty well. I know you both have the interests of the Subversion community at heart, and are both trying to make things better. I appreciate that, and I'm pretty sure everybody else here does too. I also know you both can have pretty strong views on what is Right, but that neither of you would intentionally give offense especially over something as trivial as a navigation bar. Let's just accept the fact that stuff happens, both parties have good intentions, and then move on. If we're interested in creating a better community, let's do it, but please just give the other fellow the benefit of the doubt. You both have a lot of respect in the here; don't drag yourselves, and the other guy, through the mud over something that relatively trivial. Thanks, -Hyrum
