From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CEF1A1C for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:56:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 299A319E for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so135156312wic.1 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:56:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=jEHiDLJ02HAE9nLOXyXbhk5yQxUChDHAGCtjU9rFL1I=; b=MobTqTVZfJMzrCyU7JDwymYe/ffESUdypJOx+IZcAafgIKILpEvuPFmrXEJPm+iO8H 4BnimiNeA0Eo5KeyZ7qjMBj7CXt+YrOKNedDN0UBdQ+Iskr1yPNmF9l/vbWnL2lWk1fU sFzpzuuhHLSX4v6NAo07KDXA5GRjneM8CI7aB/uiELK3HrBXThmVAUAinddet5D+Q3YZ JY9ZF/FJ/kExl2xW42KTFKfgMOrkCf17GCMKGY//xvBXdmWEVPV3OZBPYrrx95nxVWyO wOtmjUMea19F6CPA9ZlKA0607DAVAcKKiBzO/Ix2nJ6EzOxpvzUtZQF2Q1e19exjGkmD 5sHg== X-Received: by 10.180.75.38 with SMTP id z6mr12883583wiv.36.1444085806785; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:56:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5570C084-0C2D-4B79-A78E-B25699600EA9@gmx.com> References: <5612ACF3.2080006@gmail.com> <5570C084-0C2D-4B79-A78E-B25699600EA9@gmx.com> From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:56:27 +0100 Message-ID: To: Peter R Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c06c289ec240521636d6c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:56:48 -0000 --f46d043c06c289ec240521636d6c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I also agree with Mike that Core's requirement for unanimous consensus > results in development grid lock and should be revisited. > There is no development gridlock. Look at the IRC logs for core-dev; look at the pull requests; look a the merge history: Development is vibrant. Developers are very active. You are manufacturing a crisis convenient to your narrative, but it is far from the actual reality on the ground. Please desist from this intellectual dishonesty and toxicity. --f46d043c06c289ec240521636d6c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I also agree with Mike th= at Core's requirement for unanimous consensus results in development gr= id lock and should be revisited.

There is no development gridlock. Look at the IRC logs for core-dev= ; look at the pull requests; look a the merge history: Development is vibra= nt. Developers are very active. You are manufacturing a crisis convenient t= o your narrative, but it is far from the actual reality on the ground.

Please desist from this intellectual dishonesty and to= xicity.





--f46d043c06c289ec240521636d6c--