| 1 |
On 2011-07-06 21:37, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Holy shit, that attitude from Samuli sucks big balls big time. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Yes, fully agree. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> He's always come across to me as an OK dev, never seen him pull THAT |
| 8 |
> stunt before. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I've seen it, although he does come across as an OK dev to me as well. |
| 11 |
He can argue technically, when he feels like it... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Devs get a certain amount of leeway and tolerance from users because |
| 14 |
> of what they do as volunteers. But there's a line somewhere and in my |
| 15 |
> view arbitrarily deciding to obsolete a toolkit just because you feel |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, but what can we do about it? Force him (I assume he's volunteering |
| 18 |
and is not payed for his work) to continue supporting it? Well, I assume |
| 19 |
we could pay him... or something. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> like it crosses that like. Following that up with a "fuck off and stop |
| 22 |
> re-opening the ticket" is even worse. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, really bad. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> You'll note I used the verb "obsolete" and not "deprecate", that is |
| 27 |
> deliberate. He has not deprecated gtk+-2 in spite of naming it that, |
| 28 |
> he is trying to obsolete it without going through the gradual |
| 29 |
> dwindling away that deprecation is designed to encourage. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Worrisome. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Best regards |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Peter K |
Archives