1 |
Patrick Lauer wrote: |
2 |
> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as |
3 |
> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. |
4 |
> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by |
5 |
> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is |
6 |
> stupid, unfair and stupid. |
7 |
|
8 |
Wow, you are incredibly good at dismissing the actual argument that many |
9 |
folks have raised against sunrise, and instead inserting the |
10 |
"waaaaaaahhhhhh!!! they aren't treating us the same!!!" argument. In |
11 |
fact, there is no reason to be treated the same in this case. The |
12 |
council decided that sunrise was to be suspended, which in my mind |
13 |
constitutes a total scorched earth policy with respect to the use of any |
14 |
sort of Gentoo infra in any way. The council did not decide that the |
15 |
java overlay was to be suspended, ergo the java overlay can use Gentoo |
16 |
infra as a resource. |
17 |
|
18 |
> I'm sorry if the sunrise-related decisions have negative influence on |
19 |
> other projects and I hope that these issues get sorted out soon. |
20 |
> Personally I find this debate silly, jokey and genstef have done |
21 |
> whatever they could to reach a compromise for sunrise without castrating |
22 |
> the project. If that isn't enough it starts to look to me like an attack |
23 |
> on the persons and not on the technical structure. |
24 |
|
25 |
Please, cut the bullshit and stop deflecting these arguments as a |
26 |
personal attack, which you *always* seem to do once an argument reaches |
27 |
a point that you have nothing meaningful to say. |
28 |
|
29 |
-Steve |
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |