On 30/01/10 23:56, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It would help a lot of you first try to understand what happened. A person did make a claim about an alleged problem without giving any proof for his claims. I asked him kindly to give enough information so in case there really was a problem, I am able to explain where it is located.
Given where this part of the thread started, I assume this is about the message from Steve Holmes claiming he had issues with cdrtools in the past. That makes your definition of asking "kindly" quite weird. Calling a persons statements "obviously nonsense" does not sound kind to me. Especially when he said the bug was "several years ago". That is a similar time to when cdrkit was forked and you claim that to be full of bugs. It is entirely plausible that one of the large number of bugs you fixed since that split is what he hit when he tried a long time ago. To call it "obvious nonsense" implies to me that you really think there were no bugs in cdrtools back when it was forked and so cdrkit should be bug free. Or were you just calling it nonsense because someone said something bad about your code?
I'm surprised you have not sat back and thought why so many threads on mailing lists or bug trackers for various distributions end up with people being quite annoyed at you. You do really come off in a very aggressively defensive fashion (yeah, yeah, English speakers and their lack of Streitkultur....) and that does very little to entreat people to your cause. This is probably the single biggest hurdle for people including your software in their distro, because they already have a bad impression of you and would rather not deal with you if ever they get a bug report for your code.
As with all Arch development, a very long winded mailing list thread - 150+ messages and counting - will not decide what becomes part of the distribution. If it is ever decided for Arch to distribute cdrtools, it will be very much in spite of you and your attitude.
Allan
