Re: Ok to use upstream doumentation as-is (i.e. not regenerate)?
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 16:16 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 14:10 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > (Provided that said action does not cause unwanted side effects, like
> > > the documentation being out of date, because upstream forgot to
> > > regenerate them before distribution - but that falls under the "upstream
> > > to not be a moron" above ;)
> > I see this was some sort of joke, but did you have to call a volunteer
> > that made a mistake a moron? Did you have to repeat that negative label
> > twice?
> Do you have to make a fuss on a public mailing list every time you don't
> like the tone someone uses? I find getting mired in meta discussions about
> people's word choice much more damaging to the climate of our mailing lists
> than the occasional rude remark.
> And I don't think there was anything inappropriate about Gergely's message,
> either. Referring to a *hypothetical* upstream as a moron is whimsical, not
Perhaps I was being too sensitive there. Sorry for soiling this thread.