Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 02/02/2013 07:33 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:06:12AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 02/02/2013 07:03 AM, David Tardon wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:08:00AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>> When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to
>>>> talk to my manager first" before upgrading his "component" that
>>>> rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they are
>>>> maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they
>>>> want to scratch an itch and want to!
>>> There is a third reason for maintaining a component: it is a dependency
>>> for another component the packager maintains. This is applicable for
>>> _all_ packagers, be they from Red Hat or the community. You either
>>> conveniently omitted this reason to make an argument or never thought of
>>> it, in which case I respectfully ask you to butt out of this thread
>>> because you do not know what you are talking about.
>> Oh in my case it was an "primary" component no dependency that Red
>> Hat maintainer could not update until he got approval but for the
> You generalized one specific case to _all components of all Red Hat
> maintainers_. When I rejected that generalization, you are counteracting
> by claiming that my argument does not apply for that one _specific_
> case. Sorry, but that is a faulty reasoning.

No i did not "generalized one specific case to _all components of all 
Red Hat"

I know alot of Red Hat's employees that participate in the project by 
their own free will and at their own free time.

I also know alot of Red Hat's employees that are working in the project 
that go on and above their "duty" doing so.

And I also know yes granted an single individual that said he could not 
update his component in the project which he maintained without asking 
his "boss" before doing so which raises a whole bunch of questions but 
we have saying here in Icelandic "Sjaldan er ein báran stök"

>
>> sake of your argument and concision let's lower my IQ to an rock (
>> which I do believe is 20 ) and say I dont have freaking flying idea
>> what I'm talking about.
> Is this sarcasm or a personal attack? I am not quite sure...

sarcasm if any would being guilty of being stupid that would be me would 
it not?

JBG