Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:45:09
+:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here?
>>
>> Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond
>> doubt. However,
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was trying to show spb that reading personal attacks against oneself in
> > this forum is not a nice feeling. It was a stupid, priggish thing to do.
>
> Ya think?
adding sarcastic replies to the
On 3/13/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Duncan wrote:
> Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here?
>
> Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond
> doubt. However, one must ask what the reason might be for such
> deliberate trolls.
Duncan wrote:
> Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here?
>
> Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond
> doubt. However, one must ask what the reason might be for such
> deliberate trolls.
>
Yes it was, and I apologise unreservedly both to
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 12 Mar
2007 15:54:49 -0400:
> On Monday 12 March 2007, Steve Long wrote:
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> > Oh, and bashing ciaranm doesn't make you cool.
>>
>> Yeah and nor does sucking him off.
>
> seriously, sto
Steve Long wrote:
> Oh no of course not. Paludis is in fact being led in the most appropriate
> political fashion, rather than the best technical approach for the job.
Dear Steve,
this is a formal request from an ordinary Gentoo developer who has
already emailed you privately several times asking
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Grow up.
>
SKulleen+=10 :P
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Erm, to be precise here, noone has removed any ciaranm's attributions
>> from devmanual, they've all been moved to the end of the document
>> originally, so that people wouldn't be forced to scroll across one
>> page worth of contributors to get to the actual content of de
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:46:41 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is
> >> now, I have no idea.
> >
> > A QA subproject which has not yet released
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:46:41 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except it's one that needs Paludis ready before it can be considered
> complete. /me thinks are they really that clever? /me remembers
> ciaranm's incredibly smart posts from ~2 years ago when he couldn't
> stand being trea
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:00:09 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes so in a /technical/ sense he's the lead. You defer to his greater
> knowledge. Or are you more political than technical?
Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. Stop jumping to conclusions
based on incorrect assumption
Steve Long wrote: [Mon Mar 12 2007, 12:51:17PM CDT]
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST)
> > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if we didn't give a d*mn about such a distinction? IOW if you were
> discussing this technically, instead of /politically/ *sho
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Paludis is not a Gentoo project. There is no disagreement there. This
> discussion is about PMS, not Paludis.
>
Yes dear.
> Also note that the traditional "open up discussions and source to
> everyone straight away" alternative to eselect ended up being a hideous
> XML m
Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> you've managed to launch groundless attacks against
>> me, a whole bunch of other Gentoo developers, the Council, the
>> Foundation and devrel.
>
> Well, I think it's a good thing to question whether the Council, the
Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
>> couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
>> I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading)
>> PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST)
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
>> Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
>> essentially define what a Gentoo Package
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now,
>> I have no idea.
>
> A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft.
>
And it doesn't concern you that after x months, Chris had no idea wha
Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure,
>> and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a
>> Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be
>> treating it if it is a Gentoo project.
>
> It's controlled
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, I
> have no idea. While the current PMS project is not what we asked for
> and *is* outside the scope of Gentoo
That's interesting to note.
> , due to our wishing to still *have*
> a specification of
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I wonder if this thread would have been like this if deadline was called
> timetable in the original mail. I asked for access to PMS and got it so
> I don't see any problem it being in any way too secret.
>
Yay! A positive post!
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> You like to think it, but it doesn't make it true. But hey, it's so
> much easier to think that I'm the great Gentoo boogeyman, isn't it?
We need a scary entity and Vapier isn't scary enough...
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:33:38 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree,
> > staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare
> > and damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree,
>> staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare and
>> damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vapourware
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree,
> staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare and
> damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vapourware and
> conceptually completely broken, c) that the forums were encouragi
24 matches
Mail list logo
