> On 23 May 2017, at 20:21, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 10:47 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
>>> On 23 May 2017, at 19:23, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2017 06:30 AM, Will Coleda wrote:
>>>> Removed? It's still available athttps://github.com/tadzik/panda  …
>>> It is on its way out.  The developers over on the chat
>>> line directed me to zef when I asked for help getting
>>> panda working.
>>>>> Panda stinks.
>>>> That's not really true or called for.
>>> Panda is broken and not going to be repaired.  The
>>> developers on the chat line recommend zef instead.
>>> Was polite enough?
>> Perhaps you should check out the section “The End of an Era” in last weeks 
>> Perl 6 Weekly: 
>> https://p6weekly.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/2017-20-crossing-the-alps/
>> You should realize that open source software is not made by robots but by 
>> people.  People for which keeping up with changes can take more resources 
>> than they have at hand.
>> Also remember that without panda, I don’t think we would have had an 
>> ecosystem out now as fleshed out as it is now.
>> So saying that certain software stinks, feels more like projection than 
>> anything else.  So yes, *I* think it was uncalled for.
>> Liz
> Would substituting "broken" for "stinks" be polite enough?

IMO yes, because that would be factual.


Reply via email to