On Monday 20 July 2009 16:07:16 NightStrike wrote:
> > FTR, Kai forked his mingw-64 project without prior consultation
> > or explanation. Coming, as it did, shortly after Danny had
> > questioned
> This is dead wrong.
Before you jump in with both feet, to make such a claim, it would be
prudent to check your facts. Although I made this statement on the
basis of my memory of events from two years ago, it is an accurate
recollection. It is *you* who are "dead wrong", and ten minutes on
gmane is sufficient to expose your deceit.
> We forked because Danny requested it.
He did no such thing; you forked because Kai unilaterally decided to
do so, and, as I said, without prior consultation.
Perhaps you are simply confused by this:
However, if you read that IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT, it becomes clear
that Danny's request to keep mingw-w64 headers separate:--
1) Came *after* Kai's unilateral decision to present us with the
"fait accompli" of a forked project.
2) Was not a request to create a fork, (that had already been done,
without any request from anyone associated with MinGW), but simply
to defer a merge of mingw-w64 headers into MinGW's CVS, until such
time as a proper audit could be completed, and certain proprietary
information, which *may* have been illegitimately incorporated, had
3) Was not intended as a request from the MinGW Project, (although
it did reflect our POV at the time).
To set this in proper context, this prior thread is also relevant:
Note that at the time, Kai had raised the question of merging his
mingw-w64 headers into CVS HEAD. He was invited to break it down
into manageable patches, for appropriate review. A perfectly polite
request, but instead of complying, and without any further word, he
created his fork. It may not have been intentionally so, but it
definitely appeared infantile, leading to...
> > ... a strong
> > impression of Kai behaving as a sulky child: "If I can't have my
> > own way, and play by my own rules, I'm taking my ball away".
> ...And this is the reason why we don't bother working closely with
> mingw.org. The antagonism on these mailing lists is massive, and
> we just plain don't have time to deal with it.
The antagonism is perpetrated primarily by *you*; insolent and
deceitful in the extreme. Why should you expect *us* to be bothered
to deal with *you*?
> I had sent a personal
> message to you, Keith, pleading with you to do something about the
You did, and in response, I attempted to open a dialogue with Kai,
(which is what you actually asked me to do); I was not granted even
the common courtesy of a reply. Faced with such insolence, what
more would you have me do? I wrote you off, as a lost cause.
I thought Earnie was extremely graceful to offer an apology for any
part he may have played, in exacerbating the antagonism. Kai was
quick to exhibit a modicum of grace in acceptance; what a shame that
he lacked the grace to also apologise for the part he played, for it
was he alone who created the circumstances leading to the antagonism
in the first place. (It would also be nice if he were to offer an
apology for the shamefully deceitful misrepresentation of historical
fact, at least in part, which he posted earlier this week, but I
guess that may be too much to hope for).
There are always two sides to any dispute, and blame must usually be
apportioned equally to both. The MinGW Project would be delighted
to mend the rift, and to work in harmonious co-operation with
mingw-w64; we have already begun the effort to mend the bridges.
However, bridge mending must be instigated on both sides of the
rift. With apologies for mixing metaphors, the ball is now in your