On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:13:02 +0200 Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote: > 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"? It's not my idea at all. When users have issues with your fork, either you help them, or they are ignored. That would be the difference between official and not. > 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? Besides the point. People suggest using other software on this list all the time. They don't claim, however, that it's the "VLC version of MPlayer" or some such... > Do you always remember to mention the latter when talking about svn to > "unsuspecting" users? If I was posting to the "Uoti's Media Player" mailing list, I would be sure to do so. > How about you stop lying or try to get some idea about the actual > reality before posting claims that things are "absolutely" this way? A trivial over-statement on my part at the very worst. Of course you'd have to admit that if you answered me directly, so you obviously didn't want that. > I think your understanding of either repo is rather lacking You're wrong none-the-less. I'm sure everyone is tired of hearing people argue with/about you, so I won't continue this on-list. If you want to continue this further, we can keep it off-list. Of course you'll have no audience to play to then, so I seriously doubt you'll agree, but we'll see... -- Ha. I'm the idiot.
