On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 11:25:27AM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 03:53:07 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:55:34AM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > Hi Yu, > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:22:19 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > > I think similar works are already available out of the box with the latest > > > mainline tree, though it might be suboptimal in some cases. > > > > Ok, I will sound harsh because I hate it when people challenge facts > > while having no idea what they are talking about. > > > > Our jobs are help the leadership make best decisions by providing them > > with facts, not feeding them crap. > > I was using the word "similar", to represent this is only for a rough concept > level similarity, rather than detailed facts. But, seems it was not enough, > sorry. Anyway, I will not talk more and thus disturb you having the important > discussion with leaders here, as you are asking. First of all, I want to apologize. I detested what I read, and I still don't like "a rough concept level similarity" sitting next to a factual statement. But as Borislav has reminded me, my tone did cross the line. I should have had used an objective approach to express my (very) different views. I hope that's all water under the bridge now. And I do plan to carry on with what I should have had done.
