Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:59:02 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > as evidenced by >> > every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, >> > and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of >> > my time you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your >> > noise ever again. >> >> Save the adhominem kindly; may not like the fact that at the time you >> had to put forth proposals I had a say on it, but thats the way it >> was. > > It's only ad hominem when it's irrelevant to the discussion. Since the > discussion is whether or not you have anything useful to contribute, > it's not ad hominem. An example of what would be ad hominem in this > situation is saying that you can't contribute because you wear women's > underwear. > AFIAC you're just being rude ciaran. it's perfectly fair to say our people don't think they can work constructively with you, but not to start slagging people off imo.
<snip glep 42 discussion ancient history> > >> > You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, >> >> I gain zero by wrecking the process. Time for another history >> lesson... >> >> Friendly reminder, the only reason EAPI=0 is even being possible is >> because *I* added EAPI, against a fair bit of arguing at the time >> also. > > As I recall, the arguments (at least the sensible, well grounded ones) > were over it being done via an environment variable, which highly > limits the scope of possible changes. The suffix alternative doesn't > have that or any other kind of arbitrary limit. > >> Intention was for the format to evolve (add in bits stated in >> the other email that couldn't be done without breaking things). None >> of the real features folks have asked for can be added without EAPI=0 >> defined, thus *I* have an interest in it getting finished. > > Sure they can. Define EAPI 1 in terms of what it changes from existing > practice. > Yeah and some people don't like that approach, which means they want EAPI 0 defined as a foundation for future work. Thing I don't understand is why spb took it on when he knew he was going to be out of commission with his Uni. >> Yes, you may dislike the form EAPI took. Point is, kindly don't >> claim I have anything to gain by blocking the process *I* started. > > Except that blocking PMS blocks the competition, and you've already > shown that you're quite happy to resort to any means at your disposal > to do so. > Blimey he wants PMS finished, but really he wants it blocked to stop Paludis. kool-aid alert! >> Don't like your behaviour, and can get pissed off, but that >> doesn't justify the attack. Besides, public ml is the wrong place >> for it. > > No, a public ML is entirely the right place for it. > No once again, ciaran, please take this in: you are supposed to stay polite in this forum. > Here's how this thing works: > > * Some people who don't have anything better to do start posting > attacks on PMS because they hate spb or myself. Flameeyes was the first > offender here -- it suited him politically to claim that spb never does > anything, so naturally repeatedly demanding PMS updates was the way to > go. > Point of information: flameeyes never mentioned PMS, *I* did as an aside to another discussion about the insults that are allowed in this forum (which I might add would never be allowed on forums.g.o.) <snip a load of stuff about how stupid we all are> > So yes, someone has to sit down and respond to all this idiocy, and > they have to do it in public. If it's left unchecked, PMS is taken to be > a failure. > What rubbish- if the council and the `select few' know it's moving on then there's no need for you to make so much noise. The council will let others know things are cool, and you can silence everyone when you release. > In the mean time, trying to keep on top of this particular batch of > noise has amounted to about the time taken to write one and a half > chapters. So, if people really do care about PMS being finished, I > suggest they sit back and wait for a public review copy. > Yeah, can't wait. Can I suggest you stop flaming the list and get on with it ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
