| 1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The statistics are irrelevant. |
| 5 |
>> So why do you bring them up? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That's the question you should ask Duncan. Not me. I provided |
| 9 |
> statistics to highlight and provide dramatic effect. People who prefer |
| 10 |
> to discuss them and make it the primary (and only) point of reply |
| 11 |
> should reconsider their tactics. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sorry, but what? You post things to a discussion on a mailing list and |
| 14 |
expect people not to discuss them? Then tell those people that THEY are |
| 15 |
the ones who should reconsider their tactics? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>>> This stuff does not need to be resolved, put to rest, approved, |
| 19 |
>>> disapproved, or whatever! It needs to be kicked out till we can get |
| 20 |
>>> *BASIC* stuff fixed. |
| 21 |
>> I agree, but apparently council thinks it's worth their time. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> But I disagree on the maintainer-wanted thread. It's not that important |
| 24 |
>> an issue. We have Sunrise already, so let's try to improve that. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Alright, so you say it's not that important. Then bring things up that |
| 28 |
> *are* that important. Then we can solve those instead. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
While I disagree with the maintainer-wanted project idea itself, the |
| 32 |
fact that it has appeared does mean people are thinking about these |
| 33 |
things and the thread has brought up discussion on what is wrong with |
| 34 |
Gentoo and how it can be fixed. These are good things. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
While the original idea may not be implemented, the discussion it has |
| 37 |
brought about will hopefully push things a little further in the right |
| 38 |
direction. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
AllenJB |
Archives