4.0.3 backport-a-thon?

[Stephan Binner]

On Saturday 15 March 2008 18:50:01 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> the above explanation is better than "you're naive", which had far too high

In case you did not notice, my "you're naive" was a direct reply to Ruphy's
"I'm more experienced" with which he seems to consider my concern addressed 
(no word about the date or why he cannot make needed disk space free btw).

That is no personal attack on his person or his programming skills as I don't
expect the best developer of the world to predict all implications of changes.

> the symptoms of the problem included: The 4.0.2 backport ended up with

In case you did not notice, I did not critize the outcome but the backport 
process. Which in case you didn't follow last time was over large parts that
something not even compiling got submitted (violiting our KDE commit policy)
and me then posting the compiler output back to Ruphy (if I couldn't tell the
missing revision). Once it compiled more revisions turned out missing to make
the actual backported functionality make work. I can certainly imagine my time
esp weekend to be spent better or more productive than playing compiler proxy.

Bye,
   Steve