httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: Back to the roots
Date Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:27:24 GMT

In article <3725AC5D.CF5E54BA@Golux.Com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> 
>> My main failure seems to be just that I assume that the presented solution is
>> commented with _short_ and _constructive_ comments like "Fine, we like it
>> because of X, Y, Z" or "Bad, we don't like X, Y, Z but it could be made better
>> by doing it this and that way".  But it looks like this wish is not a
>> reasonable one...
> 
> Not when you have the expectation that you'll always be able to
> convince everyone.  I don't know if you have this expectation,
> but it seems like it. :-)

Yeah, that's the problem: I've this expectation very often...

>>                   At least until now no one has given a really constructive
>> statement for shtool. No one said what should be made different _and_ actually
>> why. People until now mainly said that they dislike something...
> 
> Maybe that's because they think the idea is bad altogether.  If
> that's the case, there's no way of 'making it different' that
> will make it acceptable.
> 
> All right.  I dislike shtool because
> 
> a) it would be maintained separately from the Apache tree, unlike
>    all of our other custom required-for-build tools
> b) I personally disagree that limiting the number of lines
>    displayed by 'ls' should be a goal
> c) I personally disagree that combining N distinct and special-
>    purpose scripts into one is generally good, much less that
>    it is better
> d) I dislike the acrimony this (and similar discussions) has
>    engendered
> e) other reasons, but the above are enough
> 
> At the moment, I cannot think of anything about the concept of
> shtool that I *do* like.  That's short.  I suggest we drop
> the entire discussion as a 'never mind' idea rather than
> encouraging the continuance of this debate.  That's
> constructive.

Yeahh, GREAAAT! That's it: The first constructive reply, although it gives a
totally bad mark to shtool (but that's ok). Nevertheless that's the replies I
like and never see: strong arguments and no rhetoric questions (so I this time
I _DO NOT_ feel like I've to fight against something). Fine, exactly what I
suggest now, too.  Let's treat my "use shtool for Apache" suggestion as a
"never mind" idea. The nasty discussion clearly showed that it has no chance
for Apache, so let us immediately abandon the idea. There are lots of other
Open Source projects for which shtool fits better.

Would a reply like Ken's reply the first one, the whole nasty discussion could
be avoided, of course.  Now let us finish the discussion with some words from
Rich Salz: "You're right, I'm wrong. Thanks for disagreeing."

;-)

Greetings,
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message