geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: [RTC] Merge m2migration (functional m2 build) to trunk
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:38:31 GMT

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Jeff Genender <> wrote:
>> Do you think you could answer your peers a little bit more
>> constructively?  Your answers to people are a bit caustic and it is not
>> helping promote a healthy environment.  Is there something that we can
>> help with to aid in a more amicable interaction with your peers?
> Give me a break!  I find talking down to someone like this far more
> offensive than Jason's messages on this thread.
> It's clear Jason is frustrated.  That's OK, it happens to the best of
> us every now and then.  I think your response is totally
> inappropriate.  If anything, perhaps, take a break and let's take this
> up again tomorrow.  Or yell at me for baiting him if you like.  But
> don't talk down to him -- after all, "he's your peer".  :)

It would appear you have read tone or something communicative that was
not in my intended message to Jason.  Talking down was certainly not my
intention.  It was truly an offer of help or at least to gage what we
can do to communicate better with each other.  I am sorry you read this
differently than its intention.

However, I think that the way you are addressing your concern can
probably use a bit of work too, Aaron. ;-)

> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> >> I don't understand why it hasn't been reported in JIRA? An issue is
>> >> not known unless it's reported in JIRA where people (like me) can
>> >> notice it. I don't think the community follows each and every thread
>> >> that's in dev@, so how could they know about it?
>> >
>> > So, for the 3rd time... file an issue.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Really don't understand why we have to bounce back and forth for
>> >>> several days to get something done.  For example, I asked you for the
>> >>> "length path" you ran under... and instead of actually giving me the
>> >>> path which I asked for you, you give some explanation of why you were
>> >>> in the lengthy past which I did not even ask for.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sounding as repeating myself, but as I didn't get the point I
>> >> didn't respond as you requested. I believe the answer above is
>> >> sufficient. As you wished ;-)
>> >
>> > How else would one answer the question "What is the lengthy path you
>> ran
>> > under?" except with the exact *lengthy path*?
>> >
>> > --jason

View raw message