Robert,
> Didn't stop me. And actually, I didn't face a shitstorm of criticism.
> The way I remember it, I got a pretty much unqualified positive
> reaction at the time.
Including from me, because it was a huge improvement on what we had
before. As the new app is.
> Only later, when you had conveniently forgotten
> how bad things were before we had that tool, did you start routinely
> dumping on it. And, AFAICS, not because of anything it did wrong,
> only because of things that it didn't do that were features you wanted
> to have.
In order to get a consensus on moving to a new app I had to explain what
was wrong with the old app. Eventually I had to use strong language to
do so, because nobody was paying attention otherwise. While Magnus's
app isn't my original proposal, I'm 100% behind it because it gets us
moving forward and eliminates a lot of obstacles both to submitters and
CFMs. If Magnus hasn't already, in the future we'll be able to add more
features to make things faster for major reviewers as well.
> And I think that's great, because hopefully it will
> eventually make this much nicer than what I had. It isn't nicer yet,
> though, and you showing up and tossing out insults based on
> revisionist history won't fix that.
You didn't previously say "isn't nicer". You said "essentially
unusuable". There's a big difference between those two phrases. Your
emails came off as "the new app is a disaster, we should revert
immediately", and I'm not the only one who read them that way.
If you're going to throw around negative hyperbole, expect to get it
thrown back at you.
> What particularly peeves me about your remarks is that you've
> basically made no contribution to the CommitFest process in years.
Aside from being a CFM for one CF each year, of course.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
