On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 14:37 -0800, RC wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:53:28 +0200 > Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote: > > > So first you reposted old flames from long before the git repo existed > > to mplayer-dev-eng, claiming that they gave the "full story" about the > > repo, and now you're posting shit like this here? > > You are the only one who claims either is irrelevant. I don't think for > a second even _you_ believe you don't understand, but simply use > this as your favorite arguement tactic. But I digress... I understand you're using any excuse to post crap. Later in your mail you anyway try to explain it: > Not relevant at all. You're still forking MPlayer, any way you look at > it. The "old flames" simply explain exactly why you are doing so. So your excuse is that quoting an old flame from someone else with little objective content would explain why I'd maintain a repo much later? Bullshit. And don't try to claim you were trying to refer to any general disagreements when you quoted a particular part badmouthing me (plus as already pointed out on dev-eng much of the discussion involved people with little relevance to current situation). Also you can't seriously claim any old discussions would explain the actual user-relevant state of the repositories now. > > Just what is it that the individuals are "unsuspecting" of? That you > > personally don't approve of the version? > > That "the git repo" is not an official version of MPlayer, but > instead, your personal fork. If you'd merely mention that, I wouldn't > have any complaint. So you think users are going to be shocked when they find out the code they've been running doesn't match _your_ idea of what should be considered "official"? And you think your labels are of such major importance that it's wrong not to mention them? Who do you think would care more: a git user who hears you wouldn't call his build official, or an svn user who hears that he's been missing several kinds of functionality and fixes that would have been available in the git repo? Do you always remember to mention the latter when talking about svn to "unsuspecting" users? > > Did you do _any_ fact checking before posting your "absolute" claims, > > or did you just knowingly lie? > Okay. If I'm wrong, just tell me, who else is actively developing and How about you stop lying or try to get some idea about the actual reality before posting claims that things are "absolutely" this way? > And yes, even if Reimar left the project, I do believe MPlayer would > continue to be developed, and your fork would continue to be ignored. I think your understanding of either repo is rather lacking if you think svn development would continue or that the git repo is ignored (or would even "continue" to be...).
