On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 12:39 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
It is quite a different thing to point out that a decision
has flaws and is causing problems as David did, than to insult
someone.
What David is doing is blaming the Architectures policy for something it
has nothing to do with. No Secondary Architectures have been enabled
yet. He's using this issue as a soapbox to insult the work in progress
as "ill-defined", and suggest that it "should be dropped". I find
that
insulting and unproductive.
~spot