Re: [Gnash-commit] [SCM] Gnash branch, hwaccel, updated. release_0_8_9_final-1154-ge290f51

[Sandro Santilli]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:04:36AM -0600, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 09/07/11 09:53, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> 
> > Does it make it a choice which can be voted on by the gnash developers ?
> 
>   This is not a democracy, we don't vote. :-) You really need to work on
> "agreeing to disagree", as you have a bad tendency to assume you are
> always correct, and no other opinions are valid. When developers can't
> agree, it's up to the maintainer to decide, which is still me...

Please don't bring it to personal arguments.
I belive we can count 3 developers at the moment: you, Benjamin and me.
There could always be a majority, if we voted.
Would you accept this way of taking decisions or do you want to decide
by yourself ? Or would you prefer unanimity ? We could even get unanimity
if we accepted to discuss this w/out bias.

>  However, I am willing to let the FB be built by 'auto', even though I
> dislike 'auto'. Since the FB GUI has no dependencies, it probably
> doesn't really need to be 'auto', as it should always build without
> problem.

FB didn't build w/out AGG. Now probably takes either AGG or OpenVG or
something, so there still is something to determine yes/no automatically.

--strk; 

  ()   Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer
  /\   http://strk.keybit.net/services.html