On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 2:01 PM Dario Casalinuovo <b.vitruvio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I mean that I thought you were going to go forward with the solution
you advocated then. In which case I didn't need to do anything. So I
made no effort to remember.
I can post other snippets where I told you that I were not going to fix the
issue.
(and you proposed doing last year, when you still had commit access,
so I'm not sure why you didn't do it yourself, anyway.)
You guys begun to accuse me that I required full ownership of the code. If
I reverted the stuff, you'd have accused me of that as well.
If you had just pushed reverts of the commits? Yes, probably. If you
pushed your own alternative solution on Gerrit?
Like you did for this commit right? :)
No one of you had the decency *ever* to acknowledge my points correct
which is a very disrespectful behavior.
Except, again, this is disproved by the very snippet above:
lug 11 16:09:46 <Barrett> but for now that's the way to do the things
following the standard
lug 11 16:15:01 <waddlesplash> ok I guess it's probably fine then
Except pushing a commit two weeks later with the same issues we discussed. So
either you trolled me or there's some other problem.
