Re: follow-up to report 22

[Valentin Villenave]

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> David seemingly is quite incapable of bringing his meaning across, so
> instead of substituting your own, just quote him.

Indeed. As you may have guessed, I added your name to that sentence as
an afterthought, only to make it clear that I did agree with what you
said earlier.
In this regard, I could have quoted your former emails in their entirety :-)

I am very grateful to Carl for having posted and pushed his patch, and
I'm all for conflict resolution. However, I also have to mention that
to me, this issue is not solved by any means.

I made clear what my intentions were in the first place, and I
apologized to whomever might have felt offended by some of the words I
used; however none of the suggestions I made were as much as
acknowledged by any member or administrator of the -hackers mailing
list. Is it to say that I should now follow Graham's advise: "Ask
questions. If you get no reply, then ask again. If you still get no
reply, ask if you can quote somebody as refusing to answer"?

What has changed thanks to Carl, is that -hackers is now accounted for
in the LilyPond documentation. It certainly is appropriate as a first
step, and I can understand that discussing anything further may be
seen as a non-issue, or at least an issue that isn't nearly as
important as getting 2.14 out of the door. So, now is as good a time
as any to give up.

While I probably haven't chosen the Right Way™ to ask (although I
didn't, and still don't, see any other options), what I was really
asking for was some reassuring signs from the development team
(meaning: the -hackers members). I received none.

It may be very unfair and selfish of me to say this, but here's what
I'm thinking in a nutshell: I wish Graham and Han-Wen were as prompt
to enlighten contributors in doubt, as they are to repel Guatemalan
students.

(w/o much) Cheers,
Valentin.