Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Collin, > >> Date: 2026-08-02 16:27:21-0700 >> From: Collin Funk <[email protected]> >> > [...] >> >> I can't help but wonder of what happens in WG 14 rejects this >> controversial, as obvious by this thread, change. Will the man-pages >> changes be reverted? Or will we slowly watch them document personal >> preferences instead of existing standards? > > This patch set is quite independent of the standard. It documents a > header file that has been provided since forever in glibc and most other > POSIX-ish systems, so changes to the standard are unlikely to have any > effects. I've clarified this extensively. If you want to discourage me > from applying the change, you should rather bring up technical reasons. > > This passive-aggressive message is not something that will have the > desired effects you could possibly reach with technical arguments.
I didn't read it as passive-aggressive, but I will say that I think you've gone a bit hard in the responses to Collin in this subthread, and I think the fact you sent several followup emails to yourself indicates perhaps things got heated in the moment. I think Collin was making the same conflict of interest point as was raised earlier, just in a different way. You may or may not agree with how he phrased it, and you're free to challenge that, but my reading of your replies is that it went a bit far. > > > Have a lovely night, please! > Alex > >> After seeing weekly threads >> about the prototype changes, I don't think it is an unreasonable >> concern. >> >> Collin >> sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
