From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2009-07-18 23:04:11
|
While updating mingwrt to play nicely with GCC 4.4.0, it occurred to me that there is significant duplicate effort going on between mingwrt / w32api and mingw-w64-crt. In fact, the patch I ended up committing to correct the strict-aliasing issues with mingwrt was based on changes made to mingw-w64-crt. I think there would be significant gains to all things MinGW (regardless of fork, etc.) if there was a more centralized / organized effort. I'm therefore proposing that after the upcoming mingwrt release, we begin to harmonize with the efforts of Kai and company. I'm willing to put in the effort, because I see it as a definite win / win. Thoughts? Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Kai T. <kti...@go...> - 2009-07-21 17:10:14
|
Quoting Earnie Boyd <earnie@us...> > Kai, I probably have in the past pored fuel to the flame of content. > I appreciate your honesty in your lengthy recitation of how you view > the history of MinGW-64 and thank you for it. I think it would > benefit us to forget the past and look toward the future and allow our > two ventures for MinGW to strive to become one. Let's put our > feelings aside and work toward making GCC and MinGW the best it can be. > > Kind regards, > Earnie Earnie, thanks for adding my private e-mail to this ML. I agree deeply that we have to look into future and should begin to forget about the past. I accept your apology and see it base of the beginning for better relations between our ventures. And indeed, it could lead to an merge of our two projects in some future for profit of all of us. Just to give chance for letting wounds help and annoyance cool down, I suggest here a successive approximation of our projects. The terms and conditions need further discussion and many things have to be cleared by all of us. I'll bring up this point for discussion to next mingw-w64's team meeting. So we can prepare a road map and the important points we see in co-operation and a possible merge in future. I would suggest that you could also initiate such a discussion on mingw.org. So after we finished with internal discussion, we both project could start to discuss in more detail the working together. Is this approach fine for you? Regards, Kai PS: Sorry, that I have to post outside of the origin thread context. -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | (")_(") him gain world domination |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-07-22 12:30:06
|
Quoting Kai Tietz <kti...@go...>: > Quoting Earnie Boyd <earnie@us...> > >> Kai, I probably have in the past pored fuel to the flame of content. >> I appreciate your honesty in your lengthy recitation of how you view >> the history of MinGW-64 and thank you for it. I think it would >> benefit us to forget the past and look toward the future and allow our >> two ventures for MinGW to strive to become one. Let's put our >> feelings aside and work toward making GCC and MinGW the best it can be. >> >> Kind regards, >> Earnie > > Earnie, thanks for adding my private e-mail to this ML. I agree deeply > that we have to look into future and should begin to forget about the > past. I accept your apology and see it base of the beginning for > better relations between our ventures. > And indeed, it could lead to an merge of our two projects in some > future for profit of all of us. Just to give chance for letting wounds > help and annoyance cool down, I suggest here a successive > approximation of our projects. > The terms and conditions need further discussion and many things have > to be cleared by all of us. > I'll bring up this point for discussion to next mingw-w64's team > meeting. So we can prepare a road map and the important points we see > in co-operation and a possible merge in future. I would suggest that > you could also initiate such a discussion on mingw.org. > So after we finished with internal discussion, we both project could > start to discuss in more detail the working together. > Is this approach fine for you? > Kai, This sound fine with me. I will allow others, especially Keith Marshall, make the arguments and where we have a discussion of disagreement I will mediate with NightStrike to reach a common ground and that will become the rule of cooperative work. If NightStrike and I cannot reach common ground we will bring the discussion back to this list for vote. I reach out to Keith Marshall to give his approval of this approach to our cooperative movement or propose something else. Regards, Earnie |
From: Kai T. <kti...@go...> - 2009-07-24 18:11:40
|
2009/7/22 Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...>: > Quoting Kai Tietz <kti...@go...>: > >> Quoting Earnie Boyd <earnie@us...> >> >>> Kai, I probably have in the past pored fuel to the flame of content. >>> I appreciate your honesty in your lengthy recitation of how you view >>> the history of MinGW-64 and thank you for it. I think it would >>> benefit us to forget the past and look toward the future and allow our >>> two ventures for MinGW to strive to become one. Let's put our >>> feelings aside and work toward making GCC and MinGW the best it can be. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Earnie >> >> Earnie, thanks for adding my private e-mail to this ML. I agree deeply >> that we have to look into future and should begin to forget about the >> past. I accept your apology and see it base of the beginning for >> better relations between our ventures. >> And indeed, it could lead to an merge of our two projects in some >> future for profit of all of us. Just to give chance for letting wounds >> help and annoyance cool down, I suggest here a successive >> approximation of our projects. >> The terms and conditions need further discussion and many things have >> to be cleared by all of us. >> I'll bring up this point for discussion to next mingw-w64's team >> meeting. So we can prepare a road map and the important points we see >> in co-operation and a possible merge in future. I would suggest that >> you could also initiate such a discussion on mingw.org. >> So after we finished with internal discussion, we both project could >> start to discuss in more detail the working together. >> Is this approach fine for you? >> > > Kai, > > This sound fine with me. I will allow others, especially Keith > Marshall, make the arguments and where we have a discussion of > disagreement I will mediate with NightStrike to reach a common ground > and that will become the rule of cooperative work. If NightStrike and > I cannot reach common ground we will bring the discussion back to this > list for vote. I reach out to Keith Marshall to give his approval of > this approach to our cooperative movement or propose something else. > > Regards, > Earnie > Earnie, I am fine by the suggestion that you and NightStrike are beginning to find common ground. Sadly is NightStrike at the moment pretty busy at work and can start with this in August. It sounds to me - as more as I read the old threads - as I misinterpreted some parts of those old conversation, but some of those old threads were offending. Well, I couldn't tell at this time all what was necessary to explain how this port was done, so it was maybe.a failure to come up with that at that time. I thought I expressed this already, but I think I put in the past some fuel into the fire, too. Regards, Kai PS: Keith: I am tired of those personal offends, and everybody of us should pack himself at his own nose first, and should try to begin to do something constructive. -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | (")_(") him gain world domination |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-07-24 18:43:44
|
On Friday 24 July 2009 19:11:28 Kai Tietz wrote: > Keith: I am tired of those personal offends, and everybody of us > should pack himself at his own nose first, and should try to begin > to do something constructive. Kai, If you feel that I have been offensive, I am sorry; I was merely stating fact as I saw it. I have found your own, and more so Nightstrike's repeated denial of verifiable fact to be particularly offensive. I am pleased that you have finally seen fit to apologise for your own part in this matter, for I think, if you are honest you must admit that you were the prime instigator of this entire sordid business. However, as I said earlier, some of the blame must be borne by all parties; I really do hope that we can now put it behind us. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Aaron W. L. <aar...@aa...> - 2009-07-19 08:32:43
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > I think there would be significant > gains to all things MinGW (regardless of fork, etc.) if there was a > more centralized / organized effort. I agree completely. More concretely, what exactly do you have in mind? There's a few barriers that I can think of to ready collaboration. 1) Different licensing 2) Different technical decisions (eg we split win32api out, they don't) 3) Personality conflicts I don't really sure a merge in the future, but I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with having two alternative libraries either, other than that it divides our limited manpower. It would be nice if we had a way to get some of the work done on mingw32-w64 merged into our library. Certainly they have been taking advantage of mingwrt and w32api extensively; a little reciprocity would be beneficial for both parties. |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2009-07-19 13:12:41
|
>> I think there would be significant >> gains to all things MinGW (regardless of fork, etc.) if there was a >> more centralized / organized effort. > > I agree completely. > > More concretely, what exactly do you have in mind? Ideally it would be nice to have one central repository, but that's not likely given the items you identified: > There's a few barriers that I can think of to ready collaboration. > > 1) Different licensing > 2) Different technical decisions (eg we split win32api out, they don't) > 3) Personality conflicts Additionally, given the history of w32api in particular, it would need to remain on sourceware. What I was thinking was trying, at a minimum, to get to a common code base. This would allow for easier sharing of patches between the two branches. > I don't really sure a merge in the future, but I don't necessarily think > there's anything wrong with having two alternative libraries either, > other than that it divides our limited manpower. Agreed. > It would be nice if we had a way to get some of the work done on > mingw32-w64 merged into our library. Certainly they have been taking > advantage of mingwrt and w32api extensively; a little reciprocity would > be beneficial for both parties. I'm willing to start the process of attempting to merge the mingwrt changes from mingw-w64-crt in, once I get the next mingwrt out the door. It would also be nice to gain alignment on w32api, but I'm not sure about any licensing implications. Again, I'm willing to take a look at w32api once I work through mingwrt. Help is always welcome. :) Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2009-07-19 14:14:11
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > I'm willing to start the process of attempting to merge the mingwrt > changes from mingw-w64-crt in, once I get the next mingwrt out the > door. I've got a few (ideas for) patches for that...I've run across some missing symbols in libmsvcrt.a that I'd like to see added. Gotta go right now, but I'll post more later. -- Chuck |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-07-19 13:55:38
|
On Saturday 18 July 2009 23:38:27 Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > I'm therefore proposing that after the upcoming mingwrt release, > we begin to harmonize with the efforts of Kai and company. I'm > willing to put in the effort, because I see it as a definite win / > win. > > Thoughts? I completely agree; I've never made any secret of my opinion that Kai's fork was a *bad* move, detrimental to the synergistic progress of both branches of development. FTR, Kai forked his mingw-64 project without prior consultation or explanation. Coming, as it did, shortly after Danny had questioned the provenance of some of Kai's patches, it left 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". We neither requested nor encouraged the fork, and we would be delighted to see the two branches of development merged once again. However, we would require a formal audit of mingw-64 code, to ensure conformance with our requirements for truly open documentation of sources, before such a merge could be completed. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Vincent R. <fo...@sm...> - 2009-07-19 14:24:53
|
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:55:22 +0100, Keith Marshall <kei...@us...> wrote: > On Saturday 18 July 2009 23:38:27 Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> I'm therefore proposing that after the upcoming mingwrt release, >> we begin to harmonize with the efforts of Kai and company. I'm >> willing to put in the effort, because I see it as a definite win / >> win. >> >> Thoughts? > > I completely agree; I've never made any secret of my opinion that > Kai's fork was a *bad* move, detrimental to the synergistic progress > of both branches of development. > > FTR, Kai forked his mingw-64 project without prior consultation or > explanation. Coming, as it did, shortly after Danny had questioned > the provenance of some of Kai's patches, it left 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". > > We neither requested nor encouraged the fork, and we would be > delighted to see the two branches of development merged once again. > However, we would require a formal audit of mingw-64 code, to ensure > conformance with our requirements for truly open documentation of > sources, before such a merge could be completed. I totally disagree because Kai is contributing a lot to make progress gcc on win platform. There a few people like that I can name like Dave Korn, Danny Smith , Aaron Laframboise and I am always eager to read their patch in binutils/gcc/cygwin/mingw mailing lists because generally it's a good move and you learn a lot about how things work. Another remark is the fact that everytime I had an issue with binutils/gcc on win(ce) platform I asked Kai and HE ALWAYS tried to understand what was wrong and to fix things. Last time I tried to do the same on mingw mailing list, I didn't feel people were really interested to improve things or to take in consideration some feeback (at this time I was trying to compile something and I got some weird crash). Another difference is the fact that mingw64 is trying to improve compiler and not just to provide a unix-like environment. If you want an example just have a look at Kai's last post on binutils about a preliminary work on SEH exceptions. So my opinion about the two projects is that mingw is like an old man that relies on what he has already achieved while mingw64 is a young man who looks toward future. Actually if people are reacting like that I prefer to see two separate projects because I wouldn't like that mingw64 project loose its energy and ambitions by integrating people not sharing its vision. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-07-19 15:09:30
|
On Sunday 19 July 2009 15:24:42 Vincent R. wrote: > I totally disagree because Kai is contributing a lot to make > progress gcc on win platform. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. > There a few people like that I can name like Dave Korn, Danny > Smith , Aaron Laframboise And, at the time when Kai embarked on his unnecessary fork, two of those were committed contributors to mingw32, not to mingw-w64. > Another remark is the fact that everytime I had an issue > with binutils/gcc on win(ce) platform I asked Kai and HE ALWAYS > tried to understand what was wrong and to fix things. Yet, he completely failed to appreciate the utter insanity of discarding all of those experienced developers he had previously been working alongside, and diluting his developer pool. Don't get me wrong. Kai has been productive in pursuing his goals for mingw-w64, but imagine how much *more* productive his efforts might have been, to the benefit of *both* mingw32 *and* mingw64, if he had continued to work in a spirit of co-operation with those experienced developers he left behind. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Kai T. <Kai...@on...> - 2009-07-20 11:08:47
|
Keith Marshall <kei...@us...> wrote on 19.07.2009 17:09:19: > On Sunday 19 July 2009 15:24:42 Vincent R. wrote: > > I totally disagree because Kai is contributing a lot to make > > progress gcc on win platform. > > You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. > > > There a few people like that I can name like Dave Korn, Danny > > Smith , Aaron Laframboise > > And, at the time when Kai embarked on his unnecessary fork, two of > those were committed contributors to mingw32, not to mingw-w64. > > > Another remark is the fact that everytime I had an issue > > with binutils/gcc on win(ce) platform I asked Kai and HE ALWAYS > > tried to understand what was wrong and to fix things. > > Yet, he completely failed to appreciate the utter insanity of > discarding all of those experienced developers he had previously > been working alongside, and diluting his developer pool. > > Don't get me wrong. Kai has been productive in pursuing his goals > for mingw-w64, but imagine how much *more* productive his efforts > might have been, to the benefit of *both* mingw32 *and* mingw64, if > he had continued to work in a spirit of co-operation with those > experienced developers he left behind. Hello, I would liked to reply to the ongoing discussion on mingw-dvlr by myself earlier, but I had to wait for this until today, as the subscribed e-mail is that from my office and I wanted to speak with other team-members before. First we appreciate that Chris raised this discussion. And I attended it by SF mailing list viewer interested. But some points there said are simply not true. A long time ago (already 2005) the company we were working for wanted to port our software to 64bit windows. As of the fact that a large part of the software is using ObjectiveC there is only one compiler on windows to compile it. GCC. So we began to search for a 64bit gcc/binutils port. But nothing was there. Not on mingw not anywhere else. Just some postings in newsgroups saying "yes we would love to have it, but no time/knowledge to do it." GCC4 was not even really windows 32bit ready at that time. We talked to mingw people but got similar responses. We also offered to help and to do it on our own, together with the mingw project. The port was done by the company I am still working for. Me (Kai) was one of the team, which did the white-room port beginning 2006. After the port was mostly complete we tried to provide this port to mingw.org. As at this time I was still under NDA (which was released now 6 months ago, so that I am allowed to write about this more openly), so I couldn't anwser all questions raised. But there weren't much question, mostly offending and even rumors were spreaded. Nothing of the reaction of mingw.org's leaderships has shown to us a perspective or a target in co-operation for this. So we decided to put this code into a project on SF, because it should become open source and we were in need to have an public repository (this we did in October 2007). In 2008 the company OneVision offical donated the sources and headers to me in person (and for mingw-w64) under the condition, that it has to remain open source. At this point, we began as mingw-w64 project to increase our support also for x86 support. The major politic of mingw-w64 is to work for further development strict with upstream (open available) version without private patches to external projects. Also we never made difference in user support, if somebody is using a compiler from packager x, or y, as this doesn't help the user querying questions. Also we have regular builds for developers of upstream source, so we can verify and check very quickly, that upstream source keeps working. The major point that we reduced co-operation - as mingw-w64 and before project start - is, that we were offended and defamed by persons (which are maintainers of mingw.org) more then once. Why should we accept this silently and play nice to a bad game. I never offended somebody from mingw.org team by open mailing-list flame, I tried to avoid putting oil into the fire. But I had to see pretty often on your ML the statement for users, which were searching for gcc windows 64-bit support, the statement "We don't support this fork.". Well does this shows the wish of co-operation? Honestly we are no children and no baboons, and those kind of talks and habits common to mingw.org are childish and callow. And those kind of discussion lead nowhere. As long as there is such a management of mingw.org, which prefers to talk over, but not with somebody, we as mingw-w64 have problems to accept and take them serious. Secondly, to defame my work on gcc as selfish and just good for mingw-w64 is ignorance and just shows the real issue here. Most patches I did where directly related to 32-bit as well as for 64-bit code of binutils and gcc. A lot them are one reason why 4.4.x and binutils works better for 32-bit than for a long time. Mingw.org was and will benefiting by them greatly. We provide some of our patches for shared runtime parts (because we don't want to do battle on users-head) to mingw.org, as we have the strong opinion that this is a win/win situation for both projects. We prefer to make things real, instead of just talking about it, and trying not to accuse. Cheers, Kai Tietz and Roland Schwingel --- OneVision Software Entwicklungs GmbH & Co. KG Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Strasse 9 - 93049 Regensburg Tel: +49.(0)941.78004.0 - Fax: +49.(0)941.78004.489 - www.OneVision.com Commerzbank Regensburg - BLZ 750 400 62 - Konto 6011050 Handelsregister: HRA 6744, Amtsgericht Regensburg Komplementaerin: OneVision Software Entwicklungs Verwaltungs GmbH Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Strasse 9 ? 93049 Regensburg Handelsregister: HRB 8932, Amtsgericht Regensburg - Geschaeftsfuehrer: Manuela Kluger |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-07-21 14:17:42
|
Quoting Kai Tietz <Kai...@on...>: Kai, I probably have in the past pored fuel to the flame of content. I appreciate your honesty in your lengthy recitation of how you view the history of MinGW-64 and thank you for it. I think it would benefit us to forget the past and look toward the future and allow our two ventures for MinGW to strive to become one. Let's put our feelings aside and work toward making GCC and MinGW the best it can be. Kind regards, Earnie |
From: NightStrike <nig...@gm...> - 2009-07-21 14:32:36
|
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Earnie Boyd<ea...@us...> wrote: > Quoting Kai Tietz <Kai...@on...>: > > Kai, I probably have in the past pored fuel to the flame of content. > I appreciate your honesty in your lengthy recitation of how you view > the history of MinGW-64 and thank you for it. I think it would > benefit us to forget the past and look toward the future and allow our > two ventures for MinGW to strive to become one. Let's put our > feelings aside and work toward making GCC and MinGW the best it can be. You need to realize that a huge contributor as to why mingw-w64 is so very successful is how we treat our users. As an example, mingw.org users are ridiculed and ignored just for having an email with disclaimer text at the bottom that they cannot control. We do not do this kind of thing. The entire attitude of mingw-w64 vice mingw.org from front to back is different, and we need to see movement on your side more aligned with the values we uphold. This isn't just about being nice to Kai and myself (I put myself in there, though I noticed how different your replies were to the two of us). This is about the overall attitude and motivation of the mingw.org project. There is a general feeling that users have when they come over to our project. They consider mingw.org to be "just plain mean." mingw-w64, on the other hand, makes users feel welcome, and we help them through every problem. We actively maintain many avenues of support that users want, including one hated on by mingw.org. Moreover, we have worked hard to establish relations with many upstream projects. They now view us very favorably because of how we communicate and work with them to further the various projects involved. mingw.org takes a different, conflicting approach regarding interfacing with the outside world, although you can still benefit from the improvements that we make. This kind of thing is paramount for us to reassociate with mingw.org. Currently, mingw.org has too many negatives that need to at least be acknowledged and addressed if not thoroughly cleaned out. |
From: NightStrike <nig...@gm...> - 2009-07-20 15:07:21
|
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Keith Marshall<kei...@us...> wrote: > On Saturday 18 July 2009 23:38:27 Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> I'm therefore proposing that after the upcoming mingwrt release, >> we begin to harmonize with the efforts of Kai and company. I'm >> willing to put in the effort, because I see it as a definite win / >> win. >> >> Thoughts? > > I completely agree; I've never made any secret of my opinion that > Kai's fork was a *bad* move, detrimental to the synergistic progress > of both branches of development. > > 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. We forked because Danny requested it. > the provenance of some of Kai's patches, it left 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. I had sent a personal message to you, Keith, pleading with you to do something about the negativity spread throughout yours and Earnie's posts, but received no response. So, we moved on. That's the big difference here. The mingw-w64 team makes progress. And a lot of it. The biggest thing we do differently is that we treat people wonderfully. Our users love us, upstream maintainers are ecstatic about our support, and internally we have a great working dynamic. Mingw.org lacks those things. > We neither requested nor encouraged the fork, and we would be > delighted to see the two branches of development merged once again. > However, we would require a formal audit of mingw-64 code, to ensure > conformance with our requirements for truly open documentation of > sources, before such a merge could be completed. Merging with you as mingw.org requires working with you directly. We've tried time and time again, and have been met with nothing but disdain, anger, flames, hatred, and overall unprofessional nonsense. Merging just isn't feasible until you adjust your attitude significantly and create an environment where we *can* collaborate. Until then, we are happily making everything in the toolchain suite better for **both** mingw.org as well as mingw-w64. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-07-24 17:03:52
|
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: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2528/focus=2534 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 been removed. 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: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2334/focus=2371 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 > negativity 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 court. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-07-21 14:04:13
|
Quoting NightStrike <nig...@gm...>: All, I can say is research the archives. We've more than once asked for cooperative effort. If we can find harmony between the projects it will have to be with cooperative effort between all parties and I have yet to see that. You're argumentative vain in your response for harmonious work is an example of how not to be cooperative. Harmony or not between the projects, we need to move forward with 64bit support. -- Earnie |
From: NightStrike <nig...@gm...> - 2009-07-21 14:24:01
|
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Earnie Boyd<ea...@us...> wrote: > Quoting NightStrike <nig...@gm...>: > > All, I can say is research the archives. We've more than once asked > for cooperative effort. If we can find harmony between the projects > it will have to be with cooperative effort between all parties and I > have yet to see that. You're argumentative vain in your response for > harmonious work is an example of how not to be cooperative. Harmony I wasn't arguing. I was stating the facts behind why we operate without you guys. We've given up on you. > or not between the projects, we need to move forward with 64bit support. On the contrary, we already have moved forward with full support of everything, including the support of our user base. It's you who needs to make a decision on how you are going to proceed. |