Re: Current FTBFS packages (was Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 21)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:50:32AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Kevin, I disagree. A positive tone to discussion is important even when
> > speaking the truth.
> 
> There was no negative tone in Matthew Garrett's original message:
> > If the Fedora/ARM community don't care about feature parity with x86, 
> > then we should just drop them back to secondary status.
> 
> There was nothing impolite or insulting in there. It might be impopular with 
> the ARM people, but it's still a valid point that had to be made, and 
> shouldn't have been retracted.

In context, there was absolutely an impolite tone - it confounded there 
being no interest in making a single package work on ARM with the Fedora 
ARM community having no interest in feature parity. These are not 
actually the same thing, and the fact that I equated them was 
inappropriate.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux