I am taking -release off this thread, because they have nothing to do with this. Jordon Bedwell escreveu isso aí: > On May 25, 2012 6:39 AM, "Antonio Terceiro" <terceiro@debian.org> wrote: > > This is not the first time you refer to other people's work using such > > an offensive tone. Please refrain from doing that. If you want to help > > things to improve, you can send patches. > > I was not offensive, I was honest. Just because you do not like wording > does not make it offensive, Not liking the wording is the very definition of feeling offended. If I wanted to be honest with you without carefully picking my words, be sure you would be offended. > I have sent patches and code. Actually I rewrote entire pieces to be > more intuitive only to have the email ignored and the thread die and a > bad code put in instead, code that did not even fully address the > entire issue , but alas refer to the last paragraph of my last email. The only code I ever saw coming from you wasn't even a proper patch. It was "more intuitive" in your opinion, and "less buggy" in your opinion, with both qualities measured using a NIH scale. https://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2012/03/msg00001.html Your attitude combined with claims you cannot back with concrete facts won't buy you anything. > > Ruby 1.8 will be included in Wheezy, and will be available during the > > Wheezy lifecycle. It will just not be the default. Packages that are not > > ported to Ruby 1.9 can just stay using ruby1.8, they just have to depend > > explicitly on ruby1.8 and use /usr/bin/ruby1.8 for shebangs and the > > like. If people have non-packaged code that needs Ruby 1.8, they can > > just make it the system default using alternatives. > > > > Wheezy+1 should be release late 2014, so by then it will not be > > reasonable to keep supporting Ruby 1.8, so we will probably drop Ruby > > 1.8 for Wheezy+1. > > This indirectly dodges my statement on point releases. I think most ruby > programmers would rather see no 1.8 rather than to have a FEATURE stripped > in a point release just to hang onto a grace period for a EOL instead of > making the upcoming date just be total EOL for Debian to ease management. The fact that you don't understand the first thing about how Debian works and yet you assume you know better than others makes it difficult to take you seriouly. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature