hi, On Di, 2013-06-18 at 11:16 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Hi! > > 2013/6/18 Steve Langasek <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:13:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> I think Jonathon's post earlier today captures the core issue: > > > >> On Monday, June 17, 2013 09:05:08 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote: > >> [...] > > > >> As long as Canonical declines to work with the rest of the free software > >> community, > > > > Well, I think that's an altogether inaccurate and unfair characterization. > > Canonical has always been open to working with "the rest of the free > > software community"; what Canonical has not been willing to do is blindly > > follow where certain self-appointed "upstreams" would lead, when that > > conflicts with the business's goals. > Well, working with the upstreams (who usually know their code best), > making compromises, trying to convince upstreams that the way you > think something should be designed is best and finally, if there is a > consensus, implement that code and make it available to everyone is > basically the essence of "working with "the rest of the free software > community"". It has never been easy, and if upstreams reject certain > features, people are free to fork. But the dicussion needs to happen > first and stuff needs to be implemented closely to upstream, so > everyone knows about it and it can be accepted easily. > Especially the communication step was missing in the Wayland story.
so the right reaction is to now reject the communication from the
upstream/flavour side as a punishment for this ?!?
ciao
oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
