Re: ams-before-putsch

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:58:40 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you.  Just remove that
> > idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right).  You have no business
> > calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
> 
> What did Marcus tag?

Alfred and me had a conversation on IRC about this:  He asked me if I
had any objection against him taking over the CVS tree.  He told me he
wrote 4 mails to Roland, which he thought Roland had read, but he got
no reply.

Now, if Roland doesn't reply, I know from experience that this doesn't
automatically mean consent.  Thus, I explained to Alfred that in this
case of doubt, I am going to object, so we give Roland more time to
give his opinion.

In the course of this discussion, I also told him that if he wants to
go on with his plan to commit the patches, he better prepares for the
possibility to roll back any changes, by tagging the source tree.  He
refused to do that, and said that he doesn't "see the need" to do it.
So I did it instead for him.  Of course I chose a name that would make
fun of his threats.  (The log is at
http://www.walfield.org/~deride/%23hurd-l4-20051107 and
http://www.walfield.org/~deride/%23hurd-l4-20051108 for anybody who
cares)

At this point Alfred apparently started to become unhappy that he ever
asked me the question, and began a rage against logic, asking me to
step down as a co-maintainer, telling me that I am not in fact a
maintainer at all, and all sort of things like that.  In the end, he
told me that he would ignore me, and that he thinks that my opinion on
the matter doesn't count for him.

I had no reason to believe otherwise, so I left the tag in there in
case I would need it the next morning for roll back.

> Marcus, can you find a name for the tag which is less provocative?

Well, in fact, we can remove it, because the source tree doesn't
change much these days, and thus using dates to get the right version
is feasible.  So, I removed it now.

Thanks,
Marcus