Re: leftover branches ?

[Enrico Weigelt <weigelt metux de>]

* Andrew Borodin <aborodin vmail ru> schrieb:

> > Work in progress. I'll assign it to proper ticket when it passed 
> > test cycles.
> 
> Do you really need these tons of branches for one task?

They'll get removed once last cleanups are done.
How do a few temporary branches hurt you exactly ?

Or is it just that you personally dislike my work in general 
(perhaps because mvfs does not depend on glib ?) and want it
out of sight (not just for you, but all the other devs) ?

> > Did you do any one vote on that or do you now rule alone here ?
> 
> We discussed about that in Jabber room and in this list.

As far as I remember, the consensous was that it wasn't ready
at this time (since other reworks on the vfs should come first,
which are now in for quite some time). I cannot remember any
consensous on not wanting to have 9P support ever - that's 
what #1775 is all about.

You should NOT mix up this issue w/ my proposal to replace mc-vfs
by mvfs in the long run - that's an _completely_ different issue 
and _far too early_ to take any substantiated decision on that.

> > > Please remove that branches yourself and please don't push any
> > > mvfs-related code to the mc repo. Else your write access to the
> > > mc repo will be disabled.
> > 
> > Are you sure you're officially authorized to impose those threats ?
> 
> I'm one of current MC developers.

That authorizes you to impose those threats to other devs ?

> > Did you check back with the guy who sponsors the infrastructure ?
> 
> Are you one of that sponsors?

No, but as far as I know him personally, he's not the kind of guy
who kicks offs people just for such silly reasons.

> > And do you think this is an appropriate reward for one of the 
> > people who practically revived mc from death ?
> 
> And who are that people?

A look at the commit log / bugtracker / maillist archive should
answer that question.

> > > If you develop the mc fork, please don't that in official mc server.
> > 
> > In case you still didn't notice: the mvfs stuff was meant for
> > upstream on day one.
> 
> Really?

Yes. Perhaps you just weren't here these days ?

Again, see above: we're talking about 9P support using the mvfs
library. BTW: the changes do nothing unless explicitly enabled at
compile time.


cu
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

 phone:  +49 36207 519931  email: weigelt metux de
 mobile: +49 151 27565287  icq:   210169427         skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------