Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On 02/13/2017 12:12 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 13 February 2017 at 00:34, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote: >> Considering this has been discussed exhaustively with toolchain > > It really hasn't by any stretch of imagination been discussed > "exhaustively", a few days discussion where this approach was "the > least repugnant", and alternative approaches that were less volatile > were dismissed. > > This seems more apropos of "Hastily", not "Exhaustively". > > And I'd imagine "Haste" is in application here because you want to > reach a conclusion before we hit feature freeze. > > "Heatedly" discussed may also be correct. > > But suggesting that this subject has been given a thorough dissection > and that we've reached the best conclusion after much thought is still > a very premature statement IMO. > > Say what you want, do what you want, just don't try deceiving yourself > that this is "Good and well studied discussion", that's pure politics. Kent, you are rash in your analysis. You do not know about every conversation that takes place outside your immediate view, but you continuously assume that unless you were a witness to something, it did not happen and unless you accept something, it is not good. I will not continue in these endless debates with you. (And no further response of yours on this will be met by one of mine.)Thread Previous | Thread Next