msn-pecan now has direct connection support (fast file transfers)
rlaager at wiktel.com
Mon Dec 24 18:38:29 EST 2007
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 15:04 -0600, Gary Kramlich wrote:
> Right, he's working on code that we want. This has to work both ways,
> otherwise all we do is piss each other off. Which I think has been
> clearly displayed here.
If you're talking about other than this thread, I don't really care. If
you're talking about this thread, I hope you're not talking about me.
You know my love for the idea of a distributed VCS. I think most of the
advantages are lost when people start using separate DVCSes. This is why
I seconded the Monotone suggestion. We adopted a DVCS at least in part
because it made this sort of thing easier, so I don't see how we're not
doing our part there.
With regard to hackiness... Felipe has said numerous times he's going to
do things the wrong way because it's easier. I don't see anything wrong
with suggesting they be done correctly. I certainly wasn't trying to be
abusive and if that's what I sounded like, I apologize.
Let me try this again:
Felipe, I personally think it would make merging code easier for you if
you used the same DVCS as us. It would definitely make it easier for us
to bring your changes upstream, with or without changes. It's certainly
your choice which tools you use, though. If you want tailor setup, let
me know and I'll see if I can find some time for that.
Regarding hacks... I would recommend you let us know where you're
feeling the need to make hacks and we'll see if we can fix those.
Regarding MSP15 vs. MSNP9... My *guess* would be that eventually MSN
will discontinue the older protocols, so it seems to me that it would be
better to develop against the MSNP15 code. Are there particular problems
with that code which are preventing you from working with it?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Devel