On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 16:30 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Repoman doesn't even work in gentoo-x86/eclass, thanks for playing. > > Thanks for not listening, moron. > > Ahh, yes. Allow me to show you other developers this. This is the > point where the argument breaks down. The opposing side in the debate > has no positive answer, so instead has turned to personal attack. You > just have to love acts of desperation.
Look: Me and Daniel have been insulted and called different not-so-nice things by you, Stuart and Ciaran. Our arguments have been ignored or refuted using orthogonal examples (e.g. touching a completely different problem). This is the second try to get a discussion, and it has been burninated like the first one. After about 250 emails, it is getting really tiresome. And you expect me to continue writing in an emotionally neutral style? > > Erm. eh ... that's not the point > > It was my point. > But not mine. ;-) > > But at the moment we have a standoff where nothing moves. > > Once something has happened, there's a small chance of it not being > > undone, which is a lot larger than nothing at all. > > Actually, at this point, I would say there is a very large chance of it > being undone, seeing as how you've tipped your hand, if this was your > intention, and I know that at least I will be on the lookout for these > changes in the tree. Make no mistake, I will revert this crap up until > it has been approved by the managers. Hehe. Did I scare you? Personally I don't care that much for a forced solution. If I can avoid it, I won't touch cvs. I'm just saying that other developers have done this to avoid all this tiresome blahblah and just "get it done"(tm) I don't want to impose my ideas on others, but if you try the same to me, don't expect me to roll over and purr. > > *cough* MacOS *cough* > > Oh, you mean the rest of the developers having to go behind a few new > developers that made a large number of mistakes and fixing tons of > ebuilds which they had touched? Well ... how long would it have taken otherwise to get _anything_ done? Would it have been accepted? (I know, what happened has happened and can't be changed. What-ifs are meaningless) > If that is your intention, to cause the rest of us to have to clean up > after you, then I wonder why you bother remaining a developer. If it is your intention to undo whatever I try to do, I wonder why I invest time into something where I see so much potential. I'll continue to work on Gentoo, but don't expect me to _discuss_ much. I'll just show you the results. > Actually, I seem to remember quite a bit of work being reversed, and > developers being taught why certain actions were bad, and everyone > growing and learning from it, *everyone* ... what a nice word > not some subversive tactics to try to put > in place a technically inferior solution to a non-problem which has not > only not been accepted, but has been rejected by several developers > citing examples of why it won't work. So because my first pass at trying to fix it had flaws, it's not worth fixing? > The MacOS developers at the time made a mistake due to their > inexperience with Gentoo. > You would be directly performing premeditated actions to do damage. If > that isn't enough to have a developer's status questioned, then I don't > know what is. No I don't. As I said, if I can avoid touching cvs, I won't. If you revert anything I do, your status as developer should also be questioned. Enjoy & don't get paranoid, Patrick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
