challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:08 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Three people replied to Jo Rhett's initial email.  Here's what they
> said, with Jo's own text elided:

Among other things, you time-warped some of my comments into replies  
to things people said to the comments themselves.  But the most  
crucial is that you dropped the entire point I was trying to make and  
focused on someone else's desire to focus on the specific bugs, rather  
than the overall policy issue.  So your entire thread is misguided at  
best.   Specific bugs are always addressed on the PRs themselves or  
the hardware-specific mailing list, not on the general -stable list.

Even worse is your summary:

> I won't pretend to know what Jo is thinking or what his motivation is,
> but in my experience, when people respond in this manner, it's because
> they know they have no solid data or arguments, and are trying to save
> face.

What face?  Huh?  Exactly what face do I have to save?  Why on gods  
green earth would I put saving face over system stability?  I think  
you are confusing me with someone who has time to spend all day  
writing on mailing lists/forums and considers their reputation  
important.  You're dealing with exactly the opposite -- I rarely read  
the mailing lists due to lack of time, and generally don't care what  
people think of me as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting  
work done.

> I hope this helps you to better understand who's attacking who, and
> who's being rude to who.


You should perhaps start at the beginning and look at the questions I  
asked, and then recreate the thread showing the responses to the  
policy questions I have raised.

Or just look at your own responses, which have never been less than  
rude and not once even pretended to focus on the real questions.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness