On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 08:10:34AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2015, David Lamparter wrote: > > Either we accept their choices and welcome them, or we don't pick up > > their code. Ignoring their choices and merging it in the full knowledge > > that they spoke out against it is not a valid choice if we're expecting > > and depending on their support. Putting even a second of thought into > > this couldn't have shown any other outcome than the bloodbath we got. […] > If it was *so* obvious back then, if it needed only a second's thought. > Why, oh why, didn't you point this out back then?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:55:16 +0100 From: David Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net> To: Paul Jakma <p...@jakma.org> Cc: Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com>, maintain...@quagga.net Subject: Re: babeld and licensing Message-ID: <20120312175516.go2628...@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> | | On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:37:55PM +0000, Paul Jakma wrote: | > Ok. I havn't heard David object to this approach, so there might be | > consensus on this as the way forward? I.e. is the below, modified | > LICENCING wording good?: | | I don't disagree. I don't think Juliusz will react very well to it | though. Yes, it's in no way notable enough, but it's there. I would like to point out that at that point in time I was fairly new to being a maintainer on Quagga -- I didn't want to throw a wrench into running gears. I probably should have. I apologise for not being more insistent there. I think I have addressed that particular character problem in the meantime, though :) -David (still trying to avoid sending more mails in this thread... *sigh* ...) _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
