Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I was a bit short on you, because you started to make noise about the reason
> > for the refusal being a #include being wrongly placed in the patch, and a
> > printk that was not strictly necessary, which i think for someone like you or
> > the ubuntu kernel team is a joke reason not to even do a single reply on the
> > bug report.
>
> I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the
> Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there.
> When you brought my attention to it, I pointed out two issues that you
> could fix in seconds. I had none of the hardware in question, and didn't
> want to spend time trying to work out if there was some subtle reason
> for the code being there. There was certainly no effort to sabotage your
> platform, and I haven't heard any sort of apology for your accusations.
Well, i think that benc comment about "nobody should use oldworld's by now" is
particularly clueless, and you in particular did know better than that.
So, please stay to reality, and my maybe unjudicious use of the word
"sabotage" was dedicated to this second issue. Now, really, you should all
cool down, if one has to guard every word he says in order to not offend folk,
this is going to be no fun at all. And we elected branden as DPL even :)
> > I also remember that you where much less than curteous and extremely
> > patronizing when i proposed myself to handle the ubuntu powerpc kernels, a
> > year or so ago, when i still believed that cooperation was possible, and i
> > never heard you apologize for that, so should we expulse you for both being
> > offensive to me (and having gone over to the ennemy :) ?
>
> I have absolutely no recollection of this happening, and can't find any
> references to you talking to me about it in my logs. You appeared to
> spend some time arguing with Thibaut Varene - are you sure you're not
> confused?
I may indeed be confused about this, if so i apologize.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: