Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

  > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
  > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
  > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:13:24 -0700
  > > 
  > > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
  > > 
  > >   > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
  > >   > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
  > >   > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:24:38 -0700
  > >   > > 
  > >   > > Was the removed MULTI_KBOARD code actually needed?
  > >   > 
  > >   > I don't know.  I debugged the current code, and never looked back,
  > >   > because I knew it was pointless, and because in my experience
  > >   > comparing with older versions is not an efficient way of debugging a
  > >   > program.  It's all in the logs and in CVS, if you really want to know.
  > > 
  > > So you are in effect saying that you preemptive attack was baseless and
  > > without any technical justification (the HR approach was so wrong that's
  > > not even worth disscussing).  Refusing to provide a technical
  > > justification after so many requests is quite telling.  Thank you.
  > 
  > Look, Dan, it's quite clear that you want to pick up this fight right
  > where you left off.  

Unfounded accusations as usual.  I was just stating facts.

  > But I'm done fighting.  The code and the logs are there for everyone
  > to see and study, and they speak for themselves.  They are the
  > technical justification you are asking for, as far as I'm concerned.
  > Whatever conclusions you draw from that is your own business and
  > responsibility.

You are just repeating yourself.  Still no facts.  But yes, I am done
talking about this, and with you in general because it's pointless.