El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
>> No, it's really not unfair at all. You are basically saying Andrew is
>> doing a crappy job as a maintainer
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
<guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No, I am definitely NOT saying that, nothing even close. Please don't put
> your words in my mouth, thank you.
Of course you are saying that.
No, I am not.
Why else would you even bring up the
issue of finding a "competent successor" which implies that Andrew is
no longer interested in GNU Classpath and neglecting its maintenance?
Wrong. I said that if the current maintainers don't have time or resources, perhaps they could look for a competent successor. One that they trust. That does not imply that the current maintainers are not competent. That might have been your interpretation, but it is not what I think and it is not what I said.
(By the way, when I said "competent successor" I was just quoting Eric S Raymond, literally. I even linked to the source.)
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
>> Once you answer the hypothetical question *who* should
>> be the successor, you will understand why.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
<guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I see, so if I don't have the answer, the question makes no sense. Ok.
You didn't even try to answer the question, did you?
No. I don't have the answer, and I don't think that having an answer is a prerequisite for a question to be valid.
If Andrew actually needed a "competent successor" (he doesn't),
If he doesn't, then all the better. I am not trying to annoy anyone, just trying to help.
At least this ignited a discussion. That's already something.
Guillermo
--
Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
guille.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxx
