| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 21:38 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:14:12 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > wrote: |
| 5 |
> > | Just to take this to a humorous extreme - |
| 6 |
> > | would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > That's not a humourous extreme at all. That would be a good start. Now, |
| 9 |
> > follow it up with a promise that something similar won't come along |
| 10 |
> > under a different name and make the same mistakes. |
| 11 |
Ah well, Ciaran doing his nice troll impression again. How I missed that ... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Ciaran: I think you're forgetting that Patrick's normal line of thinking |
| 14 |
> is "act first, ask questions later" :) |
| 15 |
Nah, I just don't want to wait 18 months for anonCVS, took me ~6h to get it working on my box. |
| 16 |
Genstef was a bit optimistic in starting the sunrise overlay without |
| 17 |
asking first, but I guess those people he would have asked might not |
| 18 |
have seen a problem with it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Patrick: I think you're missing the point of why your project |
| 21 |
It's not my project. It's just one of the projects I like and which I |
| 22 |
support where I can. |
| 23 |
Technically I'm not even _part_ of this project, just a random |
| 24 |
lurker ... |
| 25 |
> was |
| 26 |
> suspended in the first place. You're taking every comment that's been |
| 27 |
> made against it as a personal attack and have been ignorant in *all* the |
| 28 |
> technical details. |
| 29 |
Well ... if the technical details are "it will cause the end of the |
| 30 |
world" it's hard to evaluate them to more than "random noise that can be |
| 31 |
ignored". I really don't see how such an overlay would cause more |
| 32 |
problems than providing the ebuilds unsorted, untested and without any |
| 33 |
QA checks in bugzilla (which is official hardware, eh?). If you had |
| 34 |
looked at sunrise recently you'd have noticed that those that work on it |
| 35 |
try to do their best and reach a quite high quality standard. So you get |
| 36 |
fixed, quality checked ebuilds, dev candidates and happy users. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> If you would open your eyes and mind a little you'll |
| 39 |
> see that there are better ways to making your project work better. |
| 40 |
I could say the same to you - there's always room for improvement. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> I |
| 43 |
> don't think continuing it on unofficial hardware without fixing the |
| 44 |
> details is the best idea. |
| 45 |
That's the only way to not have it die due to ressource starvation. Get |
| 46 |
the people to not work on it for 3 months and noone will remember that |
| 47 |
it even existed (which might be the goal of some) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> You're just digging your hole deeper and not |
| 50 |
> fixing the issues we had in the first place. Please reconsider what |
| 51 |
> you're doing. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I think the strong reactions from people like jakub (which now force |
| 54 |
the java overlay to do a stupid move just because otherwise they get |
| 55 |
problems with bugs!?) show that we have a strong disagreement here |
| 56 |
with one side responding to every demand and the other side just making |
| 57 |
more demands. But eh, I'm not even part of Sunrise, so I probably |
| 58 |
shouldn't even care. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> > | Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my |
| 61 |
> > | absence ... |
| 62 |
> > That would also be a good start. |
| 63 |
> Indeed. |
| 64 |
Sorry to disappoint you :-) |
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives