Re: gratuitous changes

[Juanma Barranquero <lektu@terra.es>]

On 04 Feb 2003 09:14:09 -0800, Robert Anderson <rwa@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:

> You did, but perhaps it would have been polite to confer with Stefan
> first, to have the best timing on it.

I asked if anyone opposed the change in any way, and no one did. I asked
about branches, and Stefan answered in private mail about the issue. I
haven't heard a single voice (till now) saying "wait". I honestly don't
think I'm being impolite.

> IMO, that was not the optimal way to do it, both because it wasted your
> time and it makes it harder for people to do a parallel change without
> wasting their own.

IMO, that was the optimal way to do it, because I got to decide what
files and how to change, instead of relying in a mindless bulk
substitution of some sort (even if the script has a lot of inteligence).

> Food for thought:  a script would have left a precise prescription for
> what you did that was trivially applicable to other branches as well as
> sandboxes to prevent the kinds of merge and update problems this was
> trying to minimize.

And more food for thought: I have a few years of experience in
programming, I've got some tools (Perl among them) at hand, and still I
decided to do by hand what is undoubtedly a very boring task...

Anyway, the Unicode branch is still unchanged.  If you have a better
method, by all means, go for it.  I'd *love* for you to do the change
with a script and save me the effort.

                                                           /L/e/k/t/u