On Wednesday 8. September 2010 21.45.23 Chani wrote:
> > We gave an advise, and I personally hope we can all stop attacking the
> > messengers and the timing and look at the document and discuss the
> > problems it addresses.
>
> I believe I made it clear that advice was only welcome in the form o
On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Tom Albers wrote:
> Don't twist my words please. I've indicated that I assumed the list
> was about bikeshedding about the tool, and never considered it to be
> a decision making list. I still find the name of the list confusing.
So, because you find the name of the
On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Tom Albers wrote:
> > Again, we advise you to go for a split approach, if the list does
> > not want that, it is fine. Just solve the problems we address in
> > the document and accept the technical consequences it
On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Tom Albers wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:03:28 -0700, Chani wrote:
> > -I don't understand the fuss over reviewboard. currently, reviews
> > are sent to groups, independent of where the code is located: for
> > example, a plasma review request could be for code in kd
