wubalubadubdub

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by wubalubadubdub 3y ago

   That article you linked is pretty biased. Having said that, you cannot imply that there was a conspiracy to stop JeanHeyd's work in the rust leadership, and then say that I'm claiming sabotage. > The problem is, this isn't
2. 2.▲
   by wubalubadubdub 3y ago

   I'm not walking back. Let's go back to what I said: ------------------ > The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time propos
3. 3.▲
   by wubalubadubdub 3y ago

   > The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. H
4. 4.▲
   by wubalubadubdub 3y ago

   Is there a certain quota I have to have to comment on a post? Or are you just to poison the well, by going over my comment history? > Not that it's wrong or invalidates what you're saying I'm glad you realise that.
5. 5.▲
   by wubalubadubdub 3y ago

   I have through this discussion asserted that JeanHeid started this drama over a perceived slight for having his talk downgraded. I have separately mentioned that JeanHeyd is a person who has issue taking criticism, but I have not claimed in
6. 6.▲
   by wubalubadubdub 3y ago

   > going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't tw