On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Brett Lymn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:16:29PM -0400, Douglas Wade Needham wrote:
>>> 
>>> What I will say is that at this point, I
>>> certainly cannot see any reason a discussion about the possible
>>> removal of sendmail could not have been carried out on a list such as
>>> this, just as other feature changes are often discussed.
>>> 
>> 
>> The issue was discussed.  Unfortunately sendmail vs others is one of
>> those polarising issues.  There really is no "right" solution, there
>> will always be a group of people that will be disenfranchised whatever
>> way this went.  I suspect most people will be happy just to have a MTA
>> that forwards their mail, for the people that require a specific
>> feature set then there is always pkgsrc - if that doesn't cut it I am
>> sure that sendmail builds from source without any hassle.
>> 
>> FWIW my preference would have been to leave sendmail in the tree but
>> the it was decided it should go.  I shall get over it - pkgsrc or hand
>> built will do me.
>
> Or even an announcement before I started seeing cvs commit messages
> would be nice.
>
> And I forget what it was, but when I complained about something
> recently, one of you core guys said, "This was discussed and decided in
> core. Tough noogies." I'm not sure what that means. Do you want me to
> fork (not likely) or go to another OS (not likely, but easier for me
> than the other option.)

Oh, and let me emphasize my actual point, core is opaque. Only core
knows what happens in core. I guess it's not as bad as fight club, but
sheesh. Can't you at least post some minutes of your meetings?

-- 
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com
BSEE(6/86) + BSChem(3/95) + BAEnglish(8/95) + MSCS(8/03) + $2.50 = latte