Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:39:35 -0400:
> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:18 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: >> Hi Kevin, >> >> On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I read the "should" as >> > implying that all new packages must have it, and packages existing >> > before the introduction of metadata should get it as and when >> > maintainer gets around to it (i.e. at least on the next bump). >> >> Chris's argument was that this doc _requires_ packages to belong to >> herds (specifically, that all packages that are games automatically >> belong to the games herd). The document clearly doesn't support his >> argument. > > I said no such thing. > > This is clearly a case of you trying to assume what I'm saying in such a > way that it matches with what you want me to say. I'd take exception to that "clearly", as I don't see that being the case at all, so it's "clearly as mudly", to coin a phrase. <g> > I said that all games in the tree should be in the games herd. We like > it this way. Trying to make it out like I said something that I didn't > does what for you, exactly? To me (and evidently to Stuart H), those say exactly the same thing, that is: Stu H (arguing that this is what you said, but against the viewpoint): >> this doc _requires_ packages to belong to herds (specifically, that >> all packages that are games automatically belong to the games herd). to me is so similar as to be equivalent to: Chris G: > I said that all games in the tree should be in the games herd. It has long been my personal observation that many arguments aren't in fact arguments at all, once the meaning assigned by the different sides to each word is translated. That may or may not be the case here, but it's certainly true that I (and evidently Stu H) see no difference between the the two statements above, while you vehemently argue there IS a difference, and that in fact it's apparently so clear that someone must be deliberately distorting your statement to make it into the other. (OK, that's what I read into "Trying to make it out like I said something I didn't", but to be entirely fair, maybe you mean something different there than the way I read it too?) That being the case, perhaps if you could try to explain what you see as the difference between the two statements, the discussion can progress beyond this point. It does (to me) seem useless to continue, if what appears to be the very basic difference of whether the two above statements are effectively equivalent cannot be resolved. The arguments are just going past each other, since the two sides apparently are arguing different things due to differences in received meanings. (General observation... It generally does little to progress a discussion, and much to heat it up, when someone accuses the other side of deliberate distortion, when it may rather be a basic definitional difference, and therefore not deliberate at all. Even if there's no conceivable way you can see that the opposing viewpoint makes sense, it's generally far more conducive to progress to assume an honest attempt at understanding on the part of the other side, an honest misunderstanding, and try to find the definitional difference, than to heat up the discussion by saying something is clear, when it's obviously not or the statement wouldn't have been made in the first place. That said, both sides continued the discussion past the point where it was obvious this was a sticking point, rather than stopping right there to address it, so both sides are guilty. I just picked this point to step in and ask for the clarification myself, since I honestly don't see the difference in the two statements you say are so different, myself.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
