Re: Next release

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

  > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
  > > Cc: address@hidden
  > > Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 23:58:57 -0700
  > > 
  > > Can you please first get all the background before intervening?  
  > > Doing that is absolutely not helpful.  
  > > I am very disappointed, I didn't expect this from you Eli.
  > 
  > Well, I'm sorry I disappoint you, but I still think that we should be
  > able to discuss technical issues, even if we disagree, without
  > non-technical words such as ``whining'' or ``pestering''.

I am sorry, but this has not been a technical discussion, and I can't
find better words to find describe the treatment that I got from
Yamamoto Mituharu and the way he describes the multi-tty work, please
actually _read_ his messages.

  > > And no, someone that has not helped that effort in any way
  > > (i.e. Yamamoto Mitsuharu), despite being the most qualified person for
  > > the job, has absolutely no standing to send nastygrams about it today.
  > 
  > Sorry, but I beg to disagree.  

As I do with you here, you seem to ignore the details of what has been
happening.  And the details are actually important.  And by doing that
you seem to support a point of view that has no basis in reality.

  > Asking developers to do a good job is a reasonable thing, and anyone
  > who contributes to Emacs is in a position to do that.  

This is a true statement, but it has no relation to what is going on here.

  > As someone who did the job that is being criticized, you can, of
  > course, disagree, but please let's try not to make this personal.

Sorry, but Yamamoto Mitsuharu's comments like: "Did you want to pretend
as if multi-tty was ready to get merged to the trunk?" are exactly
personal and meant _only_ to discredit me.

Let me repeat it for the Nth time: the I did the original work in a
limited time because it was done on a borrowed machine.  I did not
continue the work precisely because Yamamoto Mitsuharu declared that the
platform is unsupported.  I am sorry, but in this circumstance I don't
see why should I take any blame for "not doing a good job"?
What would YOU have done if you where in my position?
In retrospect, it would have been much better for me to just revert the
changes when I heard that the Carbon platform will be unsupported.

  > > I am puzzled about the motivation to even bring this up today in an
  > > unrelated discussion.
  > 
  > Well, I think if you re-read what you just wrote (and I omitted), the
  > motivation will be clear.

Seriously? What is the motivation for statements like: "Did you want to
pretend as if multi-tty was ready to get merged to the trunk?"?

Again the original discussion was about what is the policy for checking
in things on the 22 branch, totally unrelated to ANY of this.