On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 12:31:58AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > ...but on the other hand you would completely reject symlinks even if
> > others like it.
> Wrong. Anyone else who is operating under this delusion, please
> re-read my posts. If I'm unclear, I apologize, and will happily
> listen to suggestions on how I can make my position more clear.
For "completely reject", read "formally object to", and note that Chris'
was one of the formal objections that caused the symlink proposal to
be rejected.
As I understand it, formal objections are "I never want to see this
implemented" -- and five of them are enough to say "This solution will
not be implemented by the policy group no matter what else may happen,
ever"; whereas a simple statement "I think this would be better done
this way..." is still enough to ensure a proposal doesn't reach consensus
and get implemented prematurely.
The above was, btw, a cheap shot on my part about the formal objection.
Chris has made it quite clear in his posts that he *is* open minded on
the issue, as, I suspect, are most of us. Some of the formal wrangling
seems to be getting in the way of finding and discussing an acceptable
solution however.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpai28P9AKXq.pgp
Description: PGP signature