Flames on d-d-l (was: Re: GNOME Namespace Management - ARC & GNOME)

[Ryan McDougall <NQG24419 nifty com>]

On Thu, 2004-16-12 at 21:13 +0000, Sander Vesik wrote:
>  --- Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> wrote: 
> > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 01:36 +0000, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > 
[snip]
> 
> > Bumping the soname is simply not even worth considering. The only
> > possible solution would have to been not to fix the bug. Realistically,
> > backwards compatibility is never black-or-white. What fixes one app
> > breaks another. When we become aware of a backwards compatibility issue
> > caused by a bug fix or feature addition, we consider a range of factors:
> > 
> 
> Realisticly, nobody gives a shit because they already ship a private version 
> of libs they need or recompile everything from scratch. One would only rely 
> on compatibility if they were completely out of their minds or were feeling really
> sadistic about their QA and support people. There is no point in even discussing 
> compatibility if the goal isn't an actual reusable and stable platform. 
> 
> 

Recently I've come to the conclusion that some debates here could use a
little more civil, less personal, tone. 99.9% of the traffic here is
pleasant to read, but occasionally there are mails that might be
considered "flamey".

Therefore I think its good for the health of this list to turn down the
heat a notch, and realize that at the end of the day these battles don't
mean all that much.

I think we can self police our flame-throwers here, but if not, it would
suck if someone had to be Flame Sheriff and constantly bug us to be nice
to each other. Maybe then we could get some of those lost core
developers to rejoin the list so we don't disconnect from them.

No one wants to see their mom writing to d-d-l! (You *are* wearing clean
underwear right?)

Cheers,
Ryan