Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: baz format archives in tla

[Thomas Lord]

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> So, please, stop spreading anger gratuitously.  Or at least, do that in
> a separate thread[*].
>   
I don't think that that's quite what I've done but never-mind, just please
recall *why* I started flaming Matthieu.   In a thread about tla, you and
he had an exchange.   You did not explicitly change the subject or make
clear that suddenly you two were talking about baz.   In this thread about
tla, you wrote:

 > Besides, my understanding was that the ultimate goal was to remove the
 > obligation to use a `c--b--v' name space, and that this archive format
 > change was one step in this direction.  Is this correct?


Innocent enough.   I can retrospectively see that you meant bazaar but 
in the context
of the thread failed to make that clear.   Your question makes complete 
sense,
in thread context, wrt to tla.

Matthieu replied:

 > Yes, it was the plan, and it has been abandoned.

Now that's interesting for two reasons.   First, it makes perfect sense 
as a statement
about tla, albeit one that is not accurate.   Second, it is an odd way 
to talk about
bazaar.   Bazaar as a whole has been shut down.   It would seem odd to 
have to
mention that a particular feature plan has been abandoned.

I came to a reasonable conclusion and replied quite reasonably.   I 
don't consider
this a flame:

 > You are not in a position to make such assertions.   
 > You are talking about other people's intentions, plans, 
 > potential plans, etc.

In exchange for which I got this gem from Matthieu:

 Matthieu:
 > We are talking about the plans for Bazaar. Had you actually read this
 > thread before flaming, you would probably have noticed it. Shall I
 > remind you that I was part of the Bazaar team (for the very simple
 > reason that Bazaar accepted my patches while you refused them) ? How
 > can you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.


Now tell me, please why this wouldn't have done: "We were talking about 
Bazaar.
I was a part of the Bazaar team and so I *am* authoritative on this issue."

Given that alternative reply I might of blushed and said "Oh, I see.  
You didn't
explicitly change the topic and so I thought you were contributing to a 
thread
about tla."    End of story.

But, no, Matthieu decided to go off on me.  Well, tit-for-tat.

> Indeed, you must be someone hard to work with.  ;-)
>
>   
I have it on multiple good authorities that the case is otherwise.

I do not, however, take kindly to Matthieu's comments.


> [*] OTOH, the good news is that it appears that your new MUA allows you
>     to not break threading!  :-)
>
>   
Agreed!  Unfortunately, two variables changed:  MUA and SMTP relay.  Which
one made the difference?  I've no idea.   Could try to figure it out if 
I cared
all that much. I will say that Thunderbird seems much
faster and less crash prone than the last version of Evolution I was 
using.  It seems
to also have fewer (not 0) "glitches" (non-crashing bugs).  Address book 
management
is nicer.   There are a couple of nice UI tweaks in Evolution that I 
miss but only a
couple and there are Thunderbird tweaks I'd miss if I were to switch back.

I still miss "M-x rmail", of course.