1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:59:02 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
>> > as evidenced by |
6 |
>> > every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, |
7 |
>> > and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of |
8 |
>> > my time you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your |
9 |
>> > noise ever again. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Save the adhominem kindly; may not like the fact that at the time you |
12 |
>> had to put forth proposals I had a say on it, but thats the way it |
13 |
>> was. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> It's only ad hominem when it's irrelevant to the discussion. Since the |
16 |
> discussion is whether or not you have anything useful to contribute, |
17 |
> it's not ad hominem. An example of what would be ad hominem in this |
18 |
> situation is saying that you can't contribute because you wear women's |
19 |
> underwear. |
20 |
> |
21 |
AFIAC you're just being rude ciaran. it's perfectly fair to say our people |
22 |
don't think they can work constructively with you, but not to start |
23 |
slagging people off imo. |
24 |
|
25 |
<snip glep 42 discussion ancient history> |
26 |
> |
27 |
>> > You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> I gain zero by wrecking the process. Time for another history |
30 |
>> lesson... |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>> Friendly reminder, the only reason EAPI=0 is even being possible is |
33 |
>> because *I* added EAPI, against a fair bit of arguing at the time |
34 |
>> also. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> As I recall, the arguments (at least the sensible, well grounded ones) |
37 |
> were over it being done via an environment variable, which highly |
38 |
> limits the scope of possible changes. The suffix alternative doesn't |
39 |
> have that or any other kind of arbitrary limit. |
40 |
> |
41 |
>> Intention was for the format to evolve (add in bits stated in |
42 |
>> the other email that couldn't be done without breaking things). None |
43 |
>> of the real features folks have asked for can be added without EAPI=0 |
44 |
>> defined, thus *I* have an interest in it getting finished. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Sure they can. Define EAPI 1 in terms of what it changes from existing |
47 |
> practice. |
48 |
> |
49 |
Yeah and some people don't like that approach, which means they want EAPI 0 |
50 |
defined as a foundation for future work. |
51 |
|
52 |
Thing I don't understand is why spb took it on when he knew he was going to |
53 |
be out of commission with his Uni. |
54 |
|
55 |
>> Yes, you may dislike the form EAPI took. Point is, kindly don't |
56 |
>> claim I have anything to gain by blocking the process *I* started. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Except that blocking PMS blocks the competition, and you've already |
59 |
> shown that you're quite happy to resort to any means at your disposal |
60 |
> to do so. |
61 |
> |
62 |
Blimey he wants PMS finished, but really he wants it blocked to stop |
63 |
Paludis. kool-aid alert! |
64 |
|
65 |
>> Don't like your behaviour, and can get pissed off, but that |
66 |
>> doesn't justify the attack. Besides, public ml is the wrong place |
67 |
>> for it. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> No, a public ML is entirely the right place for it. |
70 |
> |
71 |
No once again, ciaran, please take this in: you are supposed to stay polite |
72 |
in this forum. |
73 |
|
74 |
> Here's how this thing works: |
75 |
> |
76 |
> * Some people who don't have anything better to do start posting |
77 |
> attacks on PMS because they hate spb or myself. Flameeyes was the first |
78 |
> offender here -- it suited him politically to claim that spb never does |
79 |
> anything, so naturally repeatedly demanding PMS updates was the way to |
80 |
> go. |
81 |
> |
82 |
Point of information: flameeyes never mentioned PMS, *I* did as an aside to |
83 |
another discussion about the insults that are allowed in this forum (which |
84 |
I might add would never be allowed on forums.g.o.) |
85 |
|
86 |
<snip a load of stuff about how stupid we all are> |
87 |
> So yes, someone has to sit down and respond to all this idiocy, and |
88 |
> they have to do it in public. If it's left unchecked, PMS is taken to be |
89 |
> a failure. |
90 |
> |
91 |
What rubbish- if the council and the `select few' know it's moving on then |
92 |
there's no need for you to make so much noise. The council will let others |
93 |
know things are cool, and you can silence everyone when you release. |
94 |
|
95 |
> In the mean time, trying to keep on top of this particular batch of |
96 |
> noise has amounted to about the time taken to write one and a half |
97 |
> chapters. So, if people really do care about PMS being finished, I |
98 |
> suggest they sit back and wait for a public review copy. |
99 |
> |
100 |
Yeah, can't wait. Can I suggest you stop flaming the list and get on with |
101 |
it ;) |
102 |
|
103 |
-- |
104 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |