On 08-10-2011 18:33:15 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question > your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected > cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this > "attack" either.
If you feel I'm attacking you, then I apologise. My personal feeling is that my response was very mild and not directed to you. I haven't responded to your earlier "fastened lastriting" messages on purpose. Now that Matt brought it up for this package, I just liked to point out that we have a policy, that was made for some reason, and that you violated it. I realise that it may look like I'm picking just on you. I'm not. This is the risk you run as one of the top committers of Gentoo. I think you do a lot of good work, and I hope you'll keep on doing so for a long time. You just tend to change rules as you see fit every once in a while, which is a bad thing for Gentoo. I don't like all policies either, but I stick to them (for as far as I'm aware of them), because if we all would start to ignore what we don't like, then what would be the point in having those policies at first? Again, this doesn't mean that each policy in its current form is de-facto the best thing or something like that. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
