Call Monday 24 Jan 2005
Tue Jan 25 21:52:53 PST 2005
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
>>On Monday 24 January 2005 02:18, Roland Mainz wrote:
>>>Daniel Stone wrote:
>>>>On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:12:35AM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
>>>>>- Discussion about Daniel Stones recent behaviour (a seperate Xorg
>>>>>board call may be neccesary to decide what should be done here)
>>>>Er, I can see how this would be appropriate for a general X.Org call, but
>>>>surely the purpose of r-w calls is 6.8.x, which my commits were unrelated
>>>As I said, a seperate Xorg directors call may now be required as you are
>>>refusing even minimum cooperation (it's not about the recent comit
>>>itself, more about the general behaviour...).
>>Are you seriously suggesting disciplinary action for a change that appears to
>>have majority community support and that we have no established policy for
>>doing any other way?
> It's the way how Daniel is acting now and in the past. It's not only
> todays incident (where Daniel has horked the default settings for _ALL_
> operating systems and not only Linux)
Are you for real?
What about when you updated the build to require motif by default?
That's a lot worse than disabling a extension that is hardly used
anymore or xterm which is maintained out-of-tree.
What about adding random new Xaw and Xprint programs to the monolithic
tree even as we are planning to go modular?
What about silently adding Xprint dependencies to Xaw?
What about breaking the build for BSD (#909), a platform you surely
Yes, Daniel sometimes acts too quickly and without consulting the list,
but it's not like you have a clean slate. And for you to request a
board meeting about Daniels behaviour... words fail me.
More information about the release-wranglers