[kbenson]

> Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"?

Making as assertion about someone telling a lie comes across as that, if you're given the benefit of a doubt and assumed to not be someone that calls people out as liars with little evidence unless you get carried away.

But perhaps calling people liars is a normal mode of communication for you, and you didn't lose your cool at al. That's definitely one way to interpret the comments so far, given how you equate "criticizing" to how you've presented your position so far.

I think you had good points initially. I also think that when presented with facts about this specific situation you've allowed you argument to devolve into a stubborn stand based on technicalities while belittling others.

> So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?

Indeed.

[intertextuality]

I simply think we need to be honest about the language that we use. The truth is, instead of "nobody was happy", "nobody made i18n a priority" is far more accurate. Calling it a "lie" is perhaps too strong, but that's essentially what it is, intentional or not.

If nobody was happy about it, why was it deployed? That brings us to even more questions. Nothing presented thus far portrayed the decision to update in a better light, in fact it's only made my opinion of it worse.

I am used to websites having little to no i18n, but it's a complete mistake to actively remove existing i18n. For what? Rust 2018? A better looking landing page? Honestly now I'm just skeptical about the organizational structures that lead to this decision being approved.

[kbenson]

> If nobody was happy about it, why was it deployed?

I think you've confused "nobody was happy" with "nobody thought it needed to be done". The world is rife with actions that nobody is happy with, but most or many agree is the best of the bad options available. Just because you think there doesn't exist or can't imagine a situation in which it was better for them to do what they did than the alternative doesn't mean that's the case. There's already been an admission that the situation was bad, the result is a mistake. Whether that mistake was at the point of making the choice on dropping internationalization or at a point, possibly many months earlier, which hemmed them in and didn't allow them a good choice beyond "don't update and deal with the major problems that causes or update and deal with the major problems lack of internationalization causes" is unknown, assuming one over the other and calling people liars based on your assumption isn't very responsible.

> Calling it a "lie" is perhaps too strong, but that's essentially what it is, intentional or not.

I don't think "perhaps" is even in question. You didn't have the information to make that assertion definitively, as there are plenty of very possible and likely scenarios where it's not a lie. Do do so against a person who does know the specifics as they were involved, and without first digging deeper as to those specifics, is something I view as irresponsible.