[Gnu-arch-users] details is details, not punctuation

[Thomas Lord]

Lalo, you make a number of interesting claims without supporting
them with anything more than punctuation and insistence.  Would
you like to enter into a discussion?

> Bzr is revc done right.

A curious claim.   How do you arrive at it?

> Arch was forked because the maintainer was doing a _very_ poor job.
> GCC was forked because the mainteirers were doing a _very_ poor job.

Perhaps if you said "**very**" instead of "_very_"?

Arch was forked because I declined an offer for employment from 
Canonical because I found the details of the offer to be 
obnoxious.

I've pointed out starting places for comparing changes made to
baz to tla.   I've far from exhausted my reservoir of comparisons
and have chosen only the easiest ones I could think of to start
at.   Is it the case, as I suspect, that your notion of a "good job"
as maintainer would have been to just pass-thru whatever came
down the pipeline?   Have you been studying the code, the history
of changes, etc.?  Do you presume me to have infinite time and
resources to just quietly cleanup the turds they were dropping?

I can tell you that the buzz on the floor of Cygnus was not that Kenner
was doing a poor job but that he was too slow relative to what Cygnus
needed to live up to its promise of feeding back custom changes to GCC
into the mainline --- he was described to me as obstructionist.  Now
perhaps there were opinions about the quality of his effort that I was
not privy to but until I hear an account of the history that 
convincingly says so, I know what I saw and heard. 


> And posting this kind of absurdity and failing to admit your mistakes
> are probably the main reasons you can't get a job.

Oh my goodness, you really don't read very carefully do you.  Over the
years and even in these threads I have confessed to many mistakes and
worked hard to correct them.

If anything, I am to be criticized for too much capitulation and an 
insufficiently aggressive resistance to the baz crew long past the point
at which it should have been obvious where they were going.

> Sorry to be so blunt and rude

Not at all.  I take your perspective to be an honest expression of 
your views, however naive.

-t