On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:28:16AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose > an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people > have already signed.
Okay, here's my attempt: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m3wyBIjqwPQ3wxVT7P_wJtdWt9a9RXvt9NV7rggLAOs/edit# Please feel free to use any or all of it as you see fit. > FWIW, Gregory is right that my original draft was much more brusque. The > pain in the packaging relationship travels both ways. I have in the past > wasted a lot of time due to bogus packaging applied by non-expert packagers > that broke things. In fact the project I was a part of adopted a policy of > automatically closing bug reports from people who were using distributor > packages (any distro) because the quality was so inconsistent and so many > subtle bugs were introduced. > > If packagers hear upstreams cry about packaging a lot, I think you should > keep an open mind that some of them probably know what they're talking > about. We really shouldn't have to beg and cajole here. Saying "we have our > reasons and we want you to stop" should be enough. Yes, I know what you mean. Regards, Zooko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
