instead it sounds like a perfectly good (at least civil) rationale for explaining their decision (apart from the fact that they weren't even obliged to write such a "disclaimer" - which may even make it a sign of goodwill on their part)
but those who called developers names for "not having done research", aren't picking up a fight are they?
the mir spec page may contain inaccuracies (like that wayland's input model is similar to that of X), yes
but are you seriously blaming them, with wayland's freedesktop.org website (the official and only credited source *) describing wayland's revolutionary approach (that of merging the display server and the compositor while generating surfaces client side, oh wow) and very little else?
with the need to dwelve in the wayland-devel mailing list for the implementation details and design processes?
with the need, if you're new, to read 4+ years worth of it to reconstruct its evolution from a simple redraw loop to its current state (which even now has things to settle)?
with Xinput2 actually mentioned somewhere as a weston dependency IIRC, because "lets reuse what works"?
* or are you telling one should really dwelve in 4+ years of stuff, scattered among mailing list, phoronix articles, obscure external blogs, to cobble together knowledge about the project named after Aliens' megacorp? seriously?
that's not how a professional would work, for a professional developer only official reference material (possibly books) counts, the rest is fluff
looks like my definition of bashing and your definition of bashing are quite divergent...You can't go around bashing other development projects then get all offended when they dare to respond to your bashing.
also, consider that there is a thing called ovverreaction - which sometimes may trigger escalation, but usually leaves the one who overreacts less worthy of respect and consideration afterwards, when things have calmed down again...