On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> wrote:
> All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but > you > ignored it anyway. How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet? > *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided > to act in that way There have been plenty of insinuations that contradict that assumption and attempted to somehow blame it on RMS, but whether the record has been set straight on this point now, or if it was straight already, the point stands. As recently as a couple of weeks ago someone referred, in this list, to RMS's voicing his objection to the removal of one of the many pieces he wrote for the glibc manual, and then setting out to propose and discuss policies that incided on the matter, as if those were horrible actions. That was almost as abhorrent as his asking a GNU developer a question that he could have answered by just downloading the subproject's source code and looking for the answer himself! Oh, the horror! If that's not hatred, I don't really wish to know what is :-/ -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
