| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:37:37 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Erm, not really? This is about proper usage of GLEP42 stuff. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yes, it is about proper usage of GLEP 42. This news item is one example |
| 8 |
> of that. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > There's nothing critical about your * stuff. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Sure there is. If users aren't informed about the change in an |
| 13 |
> appropriate manner, the users get annoyed. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You're trying to sabotage this based upon arguments over wording |
| 16 |
> technicalities. Where is your evidence that this is not delivering |
| 17 |
> what is best for affected users? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
By the way on 03.03.2007 15:14 Ciaran McCreesh also wrote: |
| 20 |
> No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as |
| 21 |
> possible. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, as evidenced by |
| 22 |
> every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and |
| 23 |
> given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time |
| 24 |
> you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your noise ever |
| 25 |
> again. You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, and your |
| 26 |
> past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty |
| 27 |
> trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with |
| 28 |
> rather than having a proper technical discussion. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
For your interest, I do not consider it as a "proper technical discussion" if |
| 31 |
someone asks for evidence without delivering it himself instead of writing |
| 32 |
one third of the discussion to |
| 33 |
> make lots of noise about it |
| 34 |
(again a quoted from Ciaran McCreesh, written by him on 11.02.2007 18:40) |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives