Subject: Re: cvs 1.11.10 will be imported
To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <email@example.com>
From: Gilbert Fernandes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/14/2003 19:28:00
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 04:22:51PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> is my logic above damaged somewhere?
i feel like it's been done properly.
you did post before commiting, then you
did commit. looks all ok.
and cvs is a tool that allows to go back
on a previous version if any problem does
arise. so if someone has a problem that
is created by itojun's last commit, it's
just going back to previous version and
fixing stuff so it gets a new commit without
trouble if any.
cvs allows this, that's why it's used
and itojun warned before commiting so
if there is a problem we will use cvs
to get rid of rid. anything else that is
not motivated by a technical problem that
results from itojun-san commit is crap.
he has commit access because that's what
we expect itojun to do : commit code.
cvs gives us flexibility and security
from troubles that could arise.
the way the whole picture works is, to
me, in full support of itojun's way of
if you don't have a problem to report
introduced by itohjun's commit, then
this is just waste of bandwidth and
i'm not looking for a flame but from
a technical point of view and the fact
we're using cvs, the remarks adressed
at itojun just look non-logical to me.
your local spock might disagree with
mine though ;)