1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
3 |
>> As Denis has already stated we're not interested in the disputes |
4 |
>> between you, paludis, exherbo and some other users or projects |
5 |
>> (funtoo?). This ml is about Gentoo not about your (ciaranm, igli, |
6 |
>> trelane, etc) pet projects. |
7 |
> |
8 |
Please don't assume trelane's spat with ciaran has anything to do with me, |
9 |
as ciaran later tries to assert. trelane has nothing to do with me, and I |
10 |
nothing to do with him wrt Gentoo. I just happen to prefer to build from |
11 |
funtoo stages, is the reason we've met online. My pet project is Gentoo, |
12 |
since it's what I've stuck my neck out to recommend professionally. |
13 |
|
14 |
> We were discussing the Gentoo PMS project, and the Council's |
15 |
> involvement therein. |
16 |
> |
17 |
I thought we were discussing future Council directions. |
18 |
|
19 |
>> As you know very well, quite a few people would qualify your own |
20 |
>> behaviour at times like that. So this is one of those cases that you |
21 |
>> should start by looking at the mirror. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> <snip> |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> We all have plenty examples of your bad behaviour, so let's not go |
26 |
>> down that route. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Please point to examples of where I've said that I want a project to |
29 |
> fail, or that I plan to oppose absolutely everything someone does |
30 |
> regardless of merit. Please also point to examples of where I've said |
31 |
> that I want anything other than what's best for Gentoo. |
32 |
> |
33 |
No, let's just point to your bad behaviour as I have experienced over a |
34 |
significant period of time, with no-one ever picking you up on it, besides |
35 |
me after I got over my initial shock at your incredible rudeness: |
36 |
|
37 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/53711/focus=53817 |
38 |
(note that your answer about emake is dependent on your inability to sort |
39 |
out things like find and {e,}make in BASH, or subshell dies last time it |
40 |
came up.) |
41 |
Note also that Duncan posted here |
42 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/53825 |
43 |
..about the simple solution we could have done then, the same solution I |
44 |
discussed in the project article I posted about on dev. Nearly two years |
45 |
wasted on this crap, when as UberLord said back then: "metadata in a file |
46 |
name is pure and simple hackery that has no place here and the GLEP is a |
47 |
flimsy attempt to justify it." |
48 |
|
49 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.cvs/93817/focus=58557 |
50 |
|
51 |
I cba to find any more; let's just say it's pretty much a consensus that you |
52 |
violate the CoC lots, and have done over a period of years. That's why you |
53 |
got thrown out twice. |
54 |
|
55 |
>> Some people seem to think that the best way for Gentoo to progress as |
56 |
>> they would like, they need to ensure that you don't get to influence |
57 |
>> Gentoo as they consider your proposals compromise Gentoo's future. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Then they should address each proposal on its own merits. That isn't |
60 |
> what's being discussed, though. We're discussing a small group of |
61 |
> people whose stated aim is to disrupt anything they can associate with |
62 |
> me in any way. How is that in any way good for Gentoo's future? |
63 |
> |
64 |
Hmm it's more systemic and strategic if you want fancy words for it. As I |
65 |
said in the other mail, you've wasted a lot of everyone's time, simply |
66 |
because you're so unpleasant. Gentoo is now in the untenable position of |
67 |
telling downstream projects "We threw him out, but you have to work with |
68 |
him if you want any new EAPI features." |
69 |
|
70 |
>> But again, we (Gentoo developers and community) are getting tired of |
71 |
>> all the "bile" flying around. Please stop with that. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> Then please start by addressing the part of the email you snipped out, |
74 |
> and explain how you expect the Gentoo PMS project to operate under |
75 |
> those kinds of conditions, and why userrel hasn't stepped in when a |
76 |
> small group of users have said that they intend to sabotage a Gentoo |
77 |
> project. |
78 |
> |
79 |
I'm fine with Gentoo PMS. Just not under your supervision. Like it or not, |
80 |
social skills affect collaborative development. |
81 |
|
82 |
Since you apparently get on fine with some people, why not just work with |
83 |
them and treat Gentoo as your downstream? |
84 |
|
85 |
-- |
86 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |