Sam Hartman writes ("Re: ZFS in Buster"):
> Ian, the zfs maintainers have definitely been working in good faith
...
> There has been no hiding here.OK, good. Thank you. I am very glad to hear that I got the wrong end of the stick. I wrote that mail yesterday so I could sleep on it. Today I got a number of people to review it before I sent it. I was very much not the only person who read the message from Mo Zhou that bad way. So thank you for the clarification, which I think is important. I'm sorry if my message was a ham-fisted or offensive way of getting that clarification. I'm particularly sorry to Mo Zhou for positing a wrong allegation. > However, it's in line with a number of other unblock requests that we'd > all agree were submitted in good (if perhaps wishful) faith by people > trying to value their packages. That is of course fine. I have no problem with that. Indeed, it is sometimes only by asking for what you really want that you find out what is possible. I would like to encourage people to ask for things even if they think the answer is quite likely to be No. (NB this is not the same thing as asking the same or very similar question again, after getting No.) And those of us with gatekeeper roles should tolerate that, and when we say No we should give reasons, state clearly any boundaries that need reinforcing, and if possible make helpful alternative suggestions. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
