| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding |
| 4 |
> (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent |
| 5 |
> issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star |
| 6 |
> to think Ciaran thinks it's easier to simply wear a blindfold on to |
| 7 |
> keep thinking all what he says cannot be corrected at all, neither |
| 8 |
> improved and others must follow his instructions blindly |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Oh come on. You're just shooting the messenger. You don't like being |
| 11 |
told that if you want something, someone needs to do the work, and you |
| 12 |
can't just say "I want a flying unicorn!" and expect it to happen. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not the only one saying it, either. I point you to this, for |
| 15 |
example: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Ciaran, simply think that, if PMS team agrees with a doc explaining |
| 20 |
> what needs to be provided and the procedure, you will also save time |
| 21 |
> and not need to follow this tedious discussions, all parts will |
| 22 |
> benefit for sure. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The procedure is not the important part. The important part is finding |
| 25 |
someone who can do enough of the work that the PMS team can understand |
| 26 |
your proposal and polish off the rough edges. The work that needs to be |
| 27 |
done for that is very much a case by case thing, and it's not just a |
| 28 |
simple list of steps that anyone can follow blindly. The features |
| 29 |
you're asking for that aren't magically appearing are hard. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'll remind you that for "big" features, the GLEP process is already |
| 32 |
documented. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives