| 1 |
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 17:29 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2021-01-08 17:03, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I strongly object to you pushing this patch as-is. There have been |
| 4 |
> > plenty of non-technical objections, including from the eclass |
| 5 |
> > maintainer. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The eclass maintainer has disqualified himself going into a technical |
| 8 |
> debate with saying |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > So, over my dead commit access. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> in his first posting. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Please remind me, who granted your the power to disqualify maintainers? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> This is a technical mailing list. Currently, acct-* stuff is breaking |
| 17 |
> stuff. Nobody has challenged this yet. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, it is not. It is behaving as described. What really happens is |
| 20 |
that you rejected the design, deliberately broke your system and now are |
| 21 |
trying to push your design over false arguments. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> It's not like we cannot address the other stuff later. It's about |
| 24 |
> getting the fix down to users who are currently affected by this. So why |
| 25 |
> take hostage when some user(s) ignore the problem for more than a year |
| 26 |
> and show that they are not interested in collaboration to find a |
| 27 |
> solution for a technical problem they created despite warnings before |
| 28 |
> this went live? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yes, surely me abandoning other work to provide a patch on the same day |
| 31 |
proves that I am 'not interested in collaboration to find a solution'. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives