1 |
On 11/26/07, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> CCing council so that the other members can express their feeling about this; |
3 |
> basically the only people I actually care about getting the feeling about |
4 |
> this at all. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On Monday 26 November 2007, you wrote: |
7 |
> > Seems like everyone who contact me/us about this thread is agree about |
8 |
> > the needed of write a GLEP before doing this kind of global changes. |
9 |
|
10 |
Er, I think your statement here is wrong, as Diego pointed out ;) |
11 |
|
12 |
> |
13 |
> Everyone who contacted who? Why would people contact YOU about this thread? |
14 |
> They should, if anybody, contact me and Doug, if they think we did it the |
15 |
> wrong way, or the council, if they thought the proposal was to be stopped (in |
16 |
> which case I would have notice, being in the council myself). Even better |
17 |
> they should have opened a bug for the council to stop it. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> So. let's face it, the only people who agree on the need for a GLEP is Alec |
20 |
> and Ciaran. The rest of the thread (which by the way I had to dig up on Gmane |
21 |
> because I didn't really give a damn) is composed by Thilo who think is a |
22 |
> great idea, and by Jer who answered to Thilo saying, afaics, that he doesn't |
23 |
> see the reason to make it *mandatory*. Then there is Doug. |
24 |
|
25 |
I never said I disliked your idea. I disliked the way it was rolled |
26 |
out as it sets bad precedent for future ideas, which can now use this |
27 |
as an example to do random crap to the tree and not get feedback about |
28 |
it until it is too late. |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> Oh wait, everybody who contacted _me_ thinks it's a great idea, or nearly |
32 |
> everybody. The difference is that people who contacted me did so in the blog, |
33 |
> so you can read the comments at [1]. Yes I know they don't really count much, |
34 |
> but counts more of your "everybody who contacted me/us" to me, considering I |
35 |
> see only Antarus agreeing with you. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> On the proper matter, whether a GLEP is needed or not, well, I already said |
38 |
> before I think the GLEP process is totally broken, and I don't think that |
39 |
> waiting for months to get the GLEP approved would help users at all. For what |
40 |
> it's worth, there is already a GLEP on metadata extension, GLEP 5.. yes FIVE. |
41 |
> Status: deferred. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I think a markup change is not a problem of GLEPs, I don't think a lot of |
44 |
> stuff that gone into GLEP process should have, and should just have been |
45 |
> realised. |
46 |
> |
47 |
|
48 |
So to address the only real problem I have with this aside from |
49 |
setting poor precedent is updating the tools that parse metadata. If |
50 |
this, as Doug alluded to in an earlier comment, begins to replace |
51 |
use.local.desc then I'd like to see the tools fixed to support it. |
52 |
But maybe this is just another one of those pesky process problems |
53 |
where someone releases a new change over a holiday and I will wake up |
54 |
tomorrow with a bug filed against gentoolkit that requests parsing |
55 |
this new metadata ;) |
56 |
|
57 |
> And as for Alec's "20 minutes" comment, I would like to remind him that we |
58 |
> have a lot of people getting obnoxious when you make even a spelling mistake, |
59 |
> so for a non-native English speaker like I am, the 20 minutes figure is |
60 |
> totally wrong. And this is also my reason not to write GLEPs ever in my life, |
61 |
> I don't want to spend two weeks just to get the spelling right. That's a |
62 |
> waste of my time, and as I'm not devoting my whole life to Gentoo, it ends up |
63 |
> hurting users again. |
64 |
|
65 |
Then e-mail the glep to one of the GLEP editors (hey thats me!) and |
66 |
they will fix all the grammar problems and you can focus on the |
67 |
content of the thing. |
68 |
|
69 |
> |
70 |
> At any rate, if you have any comment regarding the way some dev act, I'd |
71 |
> suggest you, mostly for good life of both you and the dev involved, to ask |
72 |
> him BEFORE crapping on him in public. The announcement thing you referred to, |
73 |
> as Doug explained, was just a time problem, and as we're all volunteer, I |
74 |
> don't think Doug was forced to find the time to fix the stuff. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> So, as I don't really want to waste even more time on this thing that I think |
77 |
> it's totally a non-issue and just a time wasting thing, I would just ask the |
78 |
> opinion of the other members of the council. If they think we can proceed, I |
79 |
> won't stop to add documentation that users can use; if they want to discuss |
80 |
> it next meeting, I'll wait for it before doing anything; if they think it has |
81 |
> to be removed and discusse, I'll comment out my metadata (I won't REMOVE |
82 |
> them, users needs to have proper documentation of USE flags, so as I don't |
83 |
> find it good for them to remove it, I'll remove it from the semantic of |
84 |
> metadata until a new syntax could be made official - note that we NEED such |
85 |
> documentation; if going through GLEP process means making this another |
86 |
> deferred GLEP and thus giving up on documenting the USE flags for another |
87 |
> year or two, then I'll be ready to fight the decision until devrel removes me |
88 |
> from my position). |
89 |
|
90 |
I don't think a rollback is necessary. If necessary I will write up |
91 |
the GLEP and get it approved as I'd like to have some record of the |
92 |
change besides the cvs logs for the metadata.dtd (things like |
93 |
rationale and thoughts on backwards compatabilty are nice to have |
94 |
written down) |
95 |
|
96 |
> |
97 |
> [1] |
98 |
> http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/articles/2007/11/19/lets-actually-get-some-metadata#comments |
99 |
> |
100 |
> -- |
101 |
> Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò |
102 |
> http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ |
103 |
> |
104 |
> |
105 |
> |
106 |
-- |
107 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |