root requests (was: Re: [MPlayer-dev-eng] uau - svn account removal)

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:13:32AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:35:15AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 02:01:18PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > 
> > > PS root ignored me with creating a ffmpeg-win32 mailinglist and
> > > with installing roundup, later is now already installed on some other 
> > > server and will soon be made public ...
> > 
> > You were not ignored.
> > 
> > The Windows people took care of the situation themselves by creating
> > this Wiki/forum Windows help site.  Given that the whining died down
> > almost completely Mans and I assumed that a separate mailing list was
> > no longer necessary.  If you still want ffmpeg-windows it can of course
> > be created...
> 
> i dont insist on a new ML ATM but id like to get a clear reply from root if
> you (plural) ignore a request not just silence

Noted.

> > Roundup didn't either when I looked at it briefly.  Apparently Luca
> > found a customization now that can do dependencies.  Great!  He told me
> > that Roundup is great because it's a bare framework that you can adapt
> > to your needs.  If you have the time, then yes, it's great.
> > Unfortunately I don't, not at this moment.
> > 
> > If Luca makes us all happy with Roundup, I'll be the first to cheer and
> > we can move the installation to the project server.
> > 
> > Michael, we've known each other for quite some time now so I don't
> > really understand your lack of trust.  If there is some sort of problem,
> > just send a mail to Attila or myself privately or give us a phone call.
> > It's surely nothing more than a miscommunication like it seems to have
> > been now...
> 
> theres no lack of trust, just some disagreements on how to handle some
> things like policy violations and svn repo hacking and some silly
> miscommunications indeed like the ffmpeg-win32 or roundup at mphq
> 
> anyway dont take it too serious, i like to flame when in doubt about it
> being appropriate to flame :)
> and i guess we simply have different oppinions on what to do when
> svn policy gets broken, my view here probably is pretty close to arpis
> so its not surprissing that we end up fighting over it constantly :)

:)

Anyway, case closed then..

Diego