But he's not arguing that it's right. That's a proactive action, not a default reaction to not arguing it's wrong.
Kent's comment is on the line, but it doesn't look abusive. Frankly I'm more curious about the assertions rather than the phrasing, which I think is only the offensive part.
Did Michal make mistake after mistake? Did he assert that crashes are better than error handling? Did his comments or actions logically lead to that happening? That does matter in system robustness.
It seems the meat of the statements Kent made were not explored, merely that he said them harshly. Holding back development because someone wouldn't apologize publicly seems pedantic. If Kent is being hyperbolic, ie inaccurate, that's the bigger concern.
Kent's comment is on the line, but it doesn't look abusive. Frankly I'm more curious about the assertions rather than the phrasing, which I think is only the offensive part.
Did Michal make mistake after mistake? Did he assert that crashes are better than error handling? Did his comments or actions logically lead to that happening? That does matter in system robustness.
It seems the meat of the statements Kent made were not explored, merely that he said them harshly. Holding back development because someone wouldn't apologize publicly seems pedantic. If Kent is being hyperbolic, ie inaccurate, that's the bigger concern.