On 26/02/15 15:13, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Feb 26, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clo...@igalia.com> wrote: > >> To any random user reading this bug (me for example) it looks like you >> did this change that broke a feature that was working previously without >> any valid reason and that you don't even care to explain it. > I am quite confident that I will be able to live with this stigma. >
Please notice than no one in this bug is trying to blame or put an "stigma" on you. We think that the change you have done on the udev package is wrong and should be reverted. You disagree, that's ok. So, we kindly ask for an explanation about your disagreement. You refuse to give any explanation. That's not ok. Do you think this is an appropriate behavior for a maintainer? I was expecting a higher standard from a DD that maintains one of the core packages.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
