Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> But you attempted to trick people, by pretending that the patch was
> already there before my email. You wanted to make me look bad, as if
> I was bringing up an example where there was a patch in the bug-log.
> Since your claim is that m68k suffers because maintainers ignore
> patches in the bug logs, you concocted an example right away.
You're the one who mentioned guile-1.6, it's not my example.
> Your message gave no hint that you in fact posted the patch in
> *response* to my message, and indeed, since you're trying to blame
> maintainers for ignoring m68k patches, it fits right in line with your
> general attack to concoct just such a case, when in fact, the opposite
> was the case.
Get your facts straight, I posted the patch _yesterday_ night, _before_
you mentioned it.
You're still distracting from the real issue by running a personal attack
based on incorrect conclusions. :-( Do you even have any interest in
discussing the status of the m68k port or was your initial phrase 'Please
let the release team know how we can be of assistance to you in setting
and meeting goals for an m68k release' just a hollow phrase, hoping m68k
could never fix many of the remaining bugs? I may have missed something,
but I haven't seen anything from you, which might indicate something