Re: Reverting to non-async file chooser

[Tim Janik <timj imendio com>]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:28 +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>
> > Federico, there is *NO* need for such changes. you've outlined your
> > planned cancellation changes and gotten at least 3 replies from Kris
> > and me describing:
>
> A little while back you got several mails from me on why
> GInitiallyUnowned was a bad idea, and you decided to ignore my comments.
> You maintain that code, so it was your call.

i certainly didn't ignore your comments. i adressed every single issue
that was raised by you (and others). in the end it was a judgement call
between different preferences which were _technically_ _equivalent_.

unfortunately this is not the case here, your plans have clear technical
disadvantages (they introduce design problems, which aren't identified by
unit tests). and you also failed to provide a reason for applying your
patches. repeatedly so, even after being asked for it.

> In this new situation, I'll decide to ignore your comments.  I maintain
> this code, so it's my call.

that is very unfortunate, because you seem to be doing this change for
the wrong reasons, i.e. trying to turn this into an opportunity for a
tit-for-tat response.
that is, you're making a maintenance call for code despite technical
drawbacks. and not according to personal preference with the technical
issues being on par.

i know it's hard to always make a good call (or looking for the *best*) as a
maintainer. personally, i have found the influence of animosities to
complicate these types of decisions and usually lead into the wrong direction.
making an honest effort to focus only on the technical side of things, has
often helped me to improve my view and make better judgements for the
community.

>  Federico

---
ciaoTJ