From: Hayden Pearce <saint.lascivious_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:50:52 +1300

I found the wording of "a few people agree, so I'm reverting" amusing.
The amount of times "a few people agreed" something should be committed, and
it wasn't, most often blocked by the same one or two people, vs the ease of
the descision to revert something here is quite funny.

<sits back>

[Saint]
On Oct 5, 2011 8:45 PM, "Jonathan Gordon" <jdgordy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 18:19, Thomas Martitz <kugel_at_rockbox.org> wrote:
>> Am 28.09.2011 09:00, schrieb Thomas Martitz:
>>>
>>> TBH, I would like to revert this commit.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>
>> Alright, as a few people agreed with me I'm going to revert this in a few
>> hours.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>
> Go ahead, just remember you're then responsible for breaking users
> ability to load their otherwise working themes. Frankly the 2 users
> whom I've personally helped trumps your (very likely personal) reasons
> against the change.
>
> Heck, read the thread, you're the only one who has said anything about
> the actual feature, everyone else just doesnt like the implementation
> (myself included to be completely honest). But unless you're going to
> do something about the apparent ram waste, or reimplement this is a
> nicer way, then you reverting is just a dick thing to do.
>
> Best regards to you too :)
>
> Jonathan
Received on 2011-10-05