Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Making constructive suggestions instead of others that can be > > easily interpreted as whims is the way to go. > > Uh huh, and that's what I've been doing the whole time when I've > been asking for a patch for PMS, a GLEP etc. .. > requests for a better description we're supposed to be looking at
No, this isn't really constructive. As I wrote, try to drive the discussion by adding substance to it, rather than fueling flames by requesting others to refine. Since it is an area where you may be able to contribute, I think it would be great if you did! > are being met with complaints that we haven't magically done all > of the remaining work I think you're right that complaints are about your response, but I absolutely do not interpret the complaints to be that you personally or the PMS team did not implement the requested feature. I think that's a misunderstanding of yours. If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written, then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on? //Peter
pgpnKg4TULJ2m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
