| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor |
| 6 |
>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on |
| 7 |
>> your hand every time you mask something. :) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Or maybe, you know, stop starting idiotic flamewars on principles |
| 10 |
> assuming that all of QA is out to ruin your life, which seems to happen |
| 11 |
> pretty often to you. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The argument was made that unmaintained packages that have dead |
| 14 |
upstreams should be removed. I explained why this was bad policy. |
| 15 |
This is not a flamewar. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It turns out that this wasn't actually why these packages were |
| 18 |
removed, but it doesn't really change the validity of anything I said. |
| 19 |
In the end the error wasn't in the removal of the packages, but in |
| 20 |
the justification for doing so. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It really isn't meant personally, and I certainly don't take it as such. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives