accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.7.2-rc1
Date Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:26:14 GMT
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 22:18 Sean Busbey <> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sean, I noticed you committed the change you wanted to the LICENSE files,
> > in spite of my reference here indicating (more or less definitively) that
> > it wasn't actually necessary. The change itself doesn't bother me all
> that
> > much, but the fact that you proceeded while appearing to ignore my
> response
> > at this point in the conversation does.
> >
> > I'd preferred you'd have at least made an attempt convince me that it was
> > still a good idea, even if it wasn't actually necessary. I don't think it
> > would have taken much to convince me (I wasn't strongly opposed), but the
> > fact that you didn't try, kinda makes me feel like you were going to do
> > what you wanted, regardless, and didn't actually care about the community
> > discussion. That doesn't sit well with me.
> >
> > If my impression does not match your intent, please forgive me for
> > attributing false intentions. I can only describe my perspective.
> My apologies Christopher, I think we just missed each other here. I
> try to isolate
> my email use when there's coding to do in an effort to stay productive.
> Once
> there were JIRAs posted I presumed anyone with strong feelings would show
> up
> on them to discuss the changes in order to avoid clogging up the VOTE
> thread.
> Since I had a limited window of time to work on things and I knew Mike was
> going to want to spin a new RC this evening I pushed forward once any
> issues
> brought up on the JIRAs were addressed. Please take a few minutes to read
> through things on ACCUMULO-4346 and feel free to reopen it if you'd like to
> discuss additional changes; I believe Mike brought up the issue of
> referencing
> a specific file instead of including the text.
> --
> busbey

Okay. That's fair. I just wanted to make sure that the ongoing community
discussion wasn't intentionally being brushed aside in favor of a
unilateral perspective. Thanks for explaining. I was a bit sensitive and
moody earlier and was prone to misinterpreting the situation, and apologize
again, because I clearly did misinterpret.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message