On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> wrote:
> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer > and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke' > removal. Sorry, but this is not true; Easy to say for someone who hasn't been the target of hate, but it's just that it was there right then, it's *remains* there. Not exclusive among glibc maintainers, and certainly not unanimous among them, but there. I may even have earned it myself. But the one that Richard got over incorrect assumptions that he commanded the reversal, that's just another false piece of evidence often used to support the hate campaign. > The main idea, which I was vocal about and shared with some glibc > developers and maintainers, was that the "joke" has no place in a > technical manual. I understand there is consensus about that now, but back then there were too many unsettled policy issues to make that call consensually among all relevant parties. The main disagreement was not over the issue proper, though. It was about procedure, and then it was about whose opinions as much as counted. It was a really trivial issue, but sufficiently hot-button and triggering enough underlying issues that it got to be exploited politically in several ugly ways. It can't really be understood without looking into broader contexts that had long been mounting, and that again quite explicit in this list too. But I hope we can all agree that it was a horrible mess. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
