| 1 |
On Monday 09 November 2009 11:30:27 Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> And instead of being happy that people like ssuominen just fix things where |
| 3 |
> other people don't (be it because these other people have no interest, only |
| 4 |
> care about a few packages or have become distracted with life) some people |
| 5 |
> get really confused and start working on demotivating us. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
oh muffin ! get over it already. either do it right or stop doing it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> You should understand one thing: I don't care at all about most packages. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
then let them die. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I'm handling virtualbox because right now jokey doesn't seem to have the |
| 14 |
> time. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
jokey hasnt been doing virtualbox in a long time either. it's been proxy |
| 17 |
maintained. i know because i was fixing things for a while too. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> So find me a dozen recruits that can properly maintain things and I won't |
| 20 |
> feel the need to touch random packages. Stop living in your sandbox and |
| 21 |
> have a look at the bigger picture :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
we are looking at the bigger picture. everything in the tree is an example |
| 24 |
for people. if you throw crap in, people think crap is acceptable and will |
| 25 |
base their work on it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> (Btw, I wonder how many bugs glibc-2.11 will bring. We'll just let users |
| 28 |
> discover them. I love that QA!) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
hmm, let's see, one package that was already broken under other C libraries |
| 31 |
broke under glibc-2.11. and it's already been fixed. of course, if you'd |
| 32 |
simply used bugzilla's search function, you wouldnt have to rhetorically |
| 33 |
wonder aloud. |
| 34 |
-mike |
Archives