1 |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:12 AM Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 06:46:43PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote: |
4 |
> > On Thursday, 13 February 2020 5:40:46 AM AEDT Matt Turner wrote: |
5 |
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:59 AM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:54:19PM +1100, Sam Jorna (wraeth) wrote: |
7 |
> > > > > On Monday, 10 February 2020 7:55:01 AM AEDT Michał Górny wrote: |
8 |
> > > > > > On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 20:38 +0000, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: |
9 |
> > > > > > > Hrm, pardon my ignorance, but do 'we' really need to review 232 |
10 |
> > > > > > > lines of |
11 |
> > > > > > > Manifest?! |
12 |
> > > > > > |
13 |
> > > > > > Pardon mine but do 'we' really need to read your useless comments |
14 |
> > > > > > everywhere, all the time and just get irritated for no benefit to |
15 |
> > > > > > Gentoo? |
16 |
> > > > > |
17 |
> > > > > Perhaps I'm the one being ignorant here, but why are we lambasting |
18 |
> > > > > someone for seeking clarification about an unusual inclusion on a |
19 |
> > > > > review thread?> |
20 |
> > > > I wasn't going to say anything, but I can't let this go by without |
21 |
> > > > commenting. |
22 |
> > > > |
23 |
> > > > Sam is correct. Maybe the tone is a bit off, (and that is debatable), |
24 |
> > > > but this definitely can be seen as a legit question, regardless of other |
25 |
> > > > things Michael has posted. |
26 |
> > > |
27 |
> > > Unfortunately it's not about a single issue or email. It's a |
28 |
> > > consistent pattern that multiple people have asked him to rein in over |
29 |
> > > a long period. :( |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > Without going into specifics, veremit and I have certainly had our 'differences |
32 |
> > of opinion' in the past; but I don't believe this is one of those occasions. |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > Calling out bad actors (not saying veremit is one, I just mean in the general |
35 |
> > sense) is an unfortunate but important task, but call them out on bad |
36 |
> > behaviour, not for what appears to be an impassioned but otherwise |
37 |
> > unremarkable query. |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> |
40 |
> I agree with this 100 percent. Not judging solely on the content of the |
41 |
> specific email in the thread does not allow people to grow and improve. Are we |
42 |
> all to be judged on our past behavior forever with no chance to overcome past |
43 |
> transgressions ? |
44 |
|
45 |
That's not what's going on. |