El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> escribió:
> On 09/04/2014 09:07 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penb...@kernel.org > <javascript:;>> escribió: > >>> No, it's really not unfair at all. You are basically saying Andrew is > >>> doing a crappy job as a maintainer > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia > > <guille.rodrig...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> No, I am definitely NOT saying that, nothing even close. Please don't > put > >> your words in my mouth, thank you. > > > > Of course you are saying that. Why else would you even bring up the > > issue of finding a "competent successor" which implies that Andrew is > > no longer interested in GNU Classpath and neglecting its maintenance? > > Whoa Pekka, be nice. Let's just assume that Guillermo is sincere, and > he wants to help. Thank you Andrew. Yes I am sincere and want to help. > > The problem isn't competence. All of us are competent. It's a lack of > time. Yes. Never wanted to suggest the opposite. > All of us, I believe, have day jobs, and none of them are in GNU > Classpath development. > > El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penb...@kernel.org > <javascript:;>> escribió: > >>> Once you answer the hypothetical question *who* should > >>> be the successor, you will understand why. > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia > > <guille.rodrig...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> I see, so if I don't have the answer, the question makes no sense. Ok. > > > > You didn't even try to answer the question, did you? > > > > If Andrew actually needed a "competent successor" (he doesn't), what > > is required of that person? The person needs to be an active > > developer, needs to understand GNU Classpath well, and has to have > > support from people who actually developed the project, right? > > > > Are you able to make an educated guess who actually meets that criteria? > > Guillermo, please. You phrased your point badly, in a way that was likely > to annoy people. I believe that you didn't want to do that. Sorry for that. I apologize if my words annoyed anyone. It was not my intention. Guillermo > Everyone: let's have a proper discussion. Is there something we can > do with GNU Classpath that takes it further forward. And, if so, > what? What would our goals be? > > Andrew. > -- Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia guille.rodrig...@gmail.com
