1 |
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
2 |
> Ryan Hill wrote: |
3 |
>> Steve Long wrote: |
4 |
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
5 |
>>> > Steve Long wrote: |
6 |
>>> >> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an |
7 |
>>> >> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it. |
8 |
>>> >> > |
9 |
>>> >> I'm aware of the prior discussion. |
10 |
>>> >> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can. |
11 |
>>> > |
12 |
>>> > Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you |
13 |
>>> > didn't you understand? |
14 |
>>> > |
15 |
>>> No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have |
16 |
>>> light to shed; clearly not. |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual |
19 |
>>> information to add; I realise you like long fruitless mail |
20 |
>>> 'discussions', and apparently have lots of time for them, but I |
21 |
>>> don't, and I don't enjoy reading them either. This kind of one-liner |
22 |
>>> with zero content, and no intent but to insult, should simply be |
23 |
>>> binned without sending imo. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Okay, Steve, stop. I don't think you realize it, but you are trolling |
26 |
>> this list. |
27 |
> That wasn't my intention; I added that comment simply to stop the flow of |
28 |
> one-line emails. |
29 |
> |
30 |
>> Every second post is you and Ciaran bitching at each other |
31 |
> I do wish one of you devs would pick him up on his behaviour _on the list_ |
32 |
> one of these days.. instead it's _always_ me who gets the flak. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Or do you think his post was anything other than a "one-liner with zero |
35 |
> content, and no intent but to insult"? |
36 |
> |
37 |
>> or you complaining about every single thing we do that you |
38 |
>> don't personally like. |
39 |
> Not complaining, simply pointing out better ways to do things; a technical |
40 |
> discussion iow. The reason that has been more difficult a discussion than |
41 |
> it should be is because of the unpleasant comments from McCreesh, Ferdy and |
42 |
> Leverton. |
43 |
|
44 |
Not all things are technical in nature. |
45 |
|
46 |
> |
47 |
>> We appreciate your input, but please respect our |
48 |
>> right to do things the way we think is best for us, even if they aren't |
49 |
>> aligned to your personal preferences. |
50 |
>> |
51 |
> I was never under the impression that Gentoo devs would do anything other |
52 |
> than whatever they wanted. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Can you tell me what a 'server' USE flag _breaks_? |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
It breaks usability. I realize that is hard to measure but we have |
58 |
discussed this multiple times and have decided it is a Bad Idea for |
59 |
users and a Bad Idea for us. So it was not done. |
60 |
|
61 |
-Alec |