On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 10:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 04:24 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:14:53AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO, FESCo needs to accept that sometimes they make a mistake (especially
>> > if the vote was disputed to begin with) and revote. UsrMove should have
been
>> > unapproved, not only for F17, but forever.
>>
>> So, just to be clear, you're saying that even if usrmove had landed in
>> an entirely perfect and complete form the day after F16 branched, it
>> should still have been rejected?
>
> You're talking about completely theoretical situation nobody is arguing
> on.
Well Keven wrote "UsrMove should have been unapproved, not only for
F17, but forever." ... so he just oppose the feature per se not its
state.
Perhaps he thinks that "entirely perfect and complete form of UsrMove"
is impossibility and that the cons will always overweight the pros in
case of this feature. I certainly think it is impossibility to do an
entirely perfect and complete form of UsrMove. I don't say that I
wouldn't accept "almost perfect and complete form with better gains than
presented currently" but talking about "entirely perfect and complete
form of anything" is nonsense.
And I do not want to speak for Kevin - he certainly could mean other
things with his quoted phrase.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb