On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> I don't understand your position. Let me explain why.
>
> You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to
> impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one."
>
> If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no
> matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the
> experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it?
I don't really follow. It's not impossible. It's just not trivial.
Keeping the old one has been the answer for the past twenty-odd
years. But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to
find a critical problem with it.
The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a
couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it.
The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't
really need one.