WRT Maven, weren't they using two totally different scopes all along? That was my understanding. The first Maven scope that failed was an entirely different scope than the 1.2 version which is seemingly holding up well now. Right? Is it not reasonable that Maven could have acknowledged the failed scope needed improvements and subsequently made them in the 1.2 which was produced much later? And on the scope that failed, sure one guy may say it passed his "test" and then the next guy said it failed his" test" because the testing procedures were different. Wasn't that indicated all along too? That's not hard to understand and doesn't indicate impropriety to me. Where is the lying? What am I missing? I've got no dog in this fight, I just don't think calling someone a liar should be taken lightly, and as an impartial fly on the wall, I didn't see any deceit. Inform me.
Last edited by SDHNTR; 04/01/24.
