Hi, On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> You claimed that it's a bad idea to drop m68k as a release candidate, > because the only way bugs will get fixed is if maintainers are forced > to include patches. I didn't say anything about "forcing", that's your conclusion. > In fact, the one m68k porting problem that affects packages I am > concerned with has lied dormant for a year, until today. You pick a single example and draw general conclusions from it and you accuse me of "deliberately misleading"? > Your message was deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that > there had been a fix in for a while (even if "not that old yet"), when > in fact, the patch was posted *after* my message. What the hell is your problem? Yes, the patch is _one_ day old and instead of thanking me for finally fixing this problem, I get this? bye, Roman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
