On 07/11/2011 04:32 AM, Michael Pyne wrote: > Either way your original question could have been posed as "Have you tried > checking out a pre-Akonadi version of KMail" instead of "Have you tried > checking out an older version from the pre-Akonadi& related cruft days?". > 'Cruft' has always had negative connotations and so using it here when it was > not actually necessary makes a negative response to that unsurprising (and not > just an 'overreaction').
It's clearly an overreaction. This entire thread is about the negative impact that the dependency on akonadi has on a very specific and infrequent use of kmail. I believe that we all can agree at least that in this case, which is uncommon, akonadi does constitute a problem. And I also believe that we can all agree that akonadi was once added as one of kmail's dependencies a while ago and since then it became increasingly more dependent on it. So, if we can agree that akonadi in some cases happens to be something which is unpleasant and if we can agree that it's hold on kmail grew over time, then why should we waste our time whining about using the world cruft[1] to describe akonadi's role in this specific case? Are we that touchy regarding anything which might remotely resemble some form of criticism? > Well, he's not trying to get KMail to build, <snip/> Well, that's the real problem. I mean, why waste time and energy with futile arguments about the use of a specific word that they didn't personally sanctioned? That doesn't solve any problem. In fact, the only thing that it does is create even more problems and force people to waste even more time on this. I won't waste more time in this issue. I've already gave my suggestion, which I believe that no one had any problem understanding it, and bickering about words leads us nowhere. So, please let's focus on the subject. Rui Maciel [1] http://foldoc.org/cruft >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
