Re: Duplicated/redundant package for PEAR::Message -> PEAR::Crypt_HMAC

<paj@pearfr.org> wrote : > On 25 Apr 2003 20:36:55 +0100 > Jon Wood <jon@jellybob.co.uk> wrote: > >> There is a big difference between this, and Sigma... while as far as >> I'm concerned Sigma was a bad decision as well, it was backed by a >> majority of developers, whereas with this, no one was asked. > > Wrong. Many oppositions have not been counted, and that broke the > rules.Hopefully for the author I was off at this time. > > But this is not the point here. If it's not the point, don't start talking about it. The package you started to talk about, Sigma, was reviewed by many developers, they all gave their opinions about it and even tested it with their own code and benchmarks, to get to the conclusion they wanted it in PEAR. Maybe you don't care about others opinion. Personally, I have learned not to give a shit about yours. Would your Majesty have been here, it wouldn't have changed anything. But as a reminder, this all happened because of you and the way you treated Alexey Borzov's proposal from the beginning. Today, I am pretty sure you still don't understand what his cache system does. Now please, don't come back on the topic, you have made yourself ridiculous enough. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam