On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:25:06PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:10:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It also means that, if it were easy to add some redundancy, > > > it would already have happened. Which in turn means that it's hard. > > Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. Difficult isn't > > the same as impossible, and hard isn't the same as too hard. > So, basically what you're saying that it's hard, and that nobody should be > allowed to comment on it because the already delegated people are, what? > Perfect? Self-sufficient? Incapable of changing their ways? No, I'm saying that nobody who's incapable of assisting with solving the problem should be expounding on it. You're welcome to do whatever you want on your own time, of course, but if you're going to start accusing the DPL, or the buildd maintainers, or anyone else of not doing their job on these lists, then you'd better have made absolutely sure you've got the knowledge and the experience to back that sort of claim up, and that you're able to demonstrate that at all times. Anything else is both insulting (your post indicates you think Martin is so stupid that he doesn't know the benefits of redundancy, or that they're worth considering in this case), and a waste of time and energy (cliches don't solve hard problems any better than wishful thinking does; but a good insult can cause all sorts of trouble). > > BTW, I can't see where I did anything of the sort. I said your post > > contributed nothing to the discussion, was unhelpful and distracting and > > wrong, and, as such, said that you hadn't contributed anything other > > than trite cliches. > I don't know about you, but I take it as an insult when someone accuses me > of not knowing anything about something[1] and tells me to shut up. Again, I never accused you of not knowing anything about this. I said that your post didn't demonstrate any knowledge -- "more redundancy is good" isn't any more helpful than "too many cooks spoil the broth", or "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". All those things are true, and can be a useful starting point for thinking about problems that show up; but they're a starting point only, and mindlessly repeating them at people who are already well aware of the cliches isn't helpful. The problem is finding the right balance, and that's hard, and requires deep knowledge and experience with the particular details of the problem. As far as mips autobuilding goes, indeed as far as _any_ Debian autobuilding goes, I'll take Ryan's opinion over just about everyone else's, including my own. > And there you again. You seem rather inclined to judge other people's > competence based on, well, I've no idea on what do you base these claims on. Well, an obvious guess would be the posts you've just made. You know, the ones I was criticising as being trite and uninformative, while pretending at being of profound importance? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgp9YzLlJo5Eq.pgp
Description: PGP signature