Idiotic (was: rpm: alpha vs numeric)

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:12:32PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3"
> > > for rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1.
> > That method was proposed about 3 time VERY LOUD on the -devel list
> > (with using fdr or whatever distid), but no RH people commented,
> > so it was dropped or better died after a silent death in an agony
> > of 4 or 6 weeks.
> 
> Wrong.  Mike Harris replied each time it was proposed in support.

IIRC Mike suggested a scheme of the type letter < number, not anything
about the prefixed 0 (I am very grateful that Mike did take his time
to read and answer to the thread, his comments were the only aiming at
a constructive solution!).

> And while other RHatters did not reply publicly, behind the scenes
> several have gave the thumbs up.  I could ask them to confirm on
> list if you really wish.

I cannot see behind the scenes from where I stand, and most other
people also lack abilities of telepathy, so that doesn't count. RH's
announced policy is to have these discussions in public. The thread
was waiting for input since September, so if people had an opinion,
they had time to express it (in public!).

> Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of "Warren's 
> Package Naming Guidelines"

That sounds childish. And if you expect a childish answer, ask
yourself, why you didn't seriously contribute the the disttag thread
and problem instead of diverting into "Warren's drafts".

> Instead this same camp took mainly to bickering about the "refusal to 
> cooperate" which I later admitted did not belong in that document.

But still to your attitude, which you enforced and which is
unfortunate and blocking cooperation.

It is also very unfortunate that many people think that you are
speaking for all of fedora.us, and that you created and still maintain
the chasm.

> I suppose I should have posted my thoughts at the time when seeing 
> "rhfc1" but I couldn't think of a nicer way of expressing "idiotic".

Why being offensive (again)? Please carry on with the thread
alone.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20031113/744bf284/attachment.sig>