| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:44 -0300 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:53:14 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:53:53 -0300 |
| 6 |
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > please spend your time on something useful: |
| 8 |
> > > fix bug #449094 and bug #462138 or propose something you think |
| 9 |
> > > better for fixing the problems those bugs describe. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Those are both an awful lot of work for a very minimal gain for a |
| 12 |
> > very small number of packages. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> those more or less are what is needed to have subslots working nicely |
| 15 |
> for the (counter)examples in this thread |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Are you sure? I've not seen a prototype or reference implementation of |
| 18 |
either idea, nor a demonstration of how such features would work in |
| 19 |
practice. We know from past experience that there is a big gap between |
| 20 |
"I have an idea" to "this is a viable solution", and I've not seen |
| 21 |
anyone do the work to move either bug from the former to the latter. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's all very well claiming "this will fix everything!", but for |
| 24 |
non-trivial features such as these, you really need to get at least a |
| 25 |
rough implementation to try it out. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > > subslots are far from perfect atm |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > But they're much better than not having them, and they're probably |
| 30 |
> > as good as you're going to get any time soon. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> if you waste your time trolling like in the other thread some |
| 33 |
> weeks/months ago then yes nothing else but trolling will happen. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Accusations of trolling have nothing to do with getting a feature |
| 36 |
implemented. Writing a prototype implementation does. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives