| 1 |
On 11/14/2011 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14/11/11 01:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/14/2011 09:38 AM, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> As I type: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> emerge should show build output by default (unless --quiet-build=y) 42% |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> So far that's the winner. As I posted earlier, people expect things to |
| 9 |
>>> work like they have always worked. I say that as a user. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> As I've explained in my post to that forum thread [1], you have to |
| 12 |
>> factor in the "silent majority" that welcomes the change and does not |
| 13 |
>> express it publicly. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Uhh.. isn't that like saying, in a general election, "you have to take |
| 16 |
> into account all the people that don't vote" ?? Just sayin'... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You've snipped my comment about human nature, which is that those who |
| 19 |
are displeased with the changed more likely to speak up than those who |
| 20 |
welcome the change. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> My $0.02 is that, after 50-60 (or more? i lost count) posts on whether |
| 23 |
> this flag is set or not, and what seems to be entrenchment instead of |
| 24 |
> consolidation on either side, maybe this should be put on the agenda at |
| 25 |
> the next Council meeting -- 5 mins of debate + a vote and the argument |
| 26 |
> is done, right? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That sound fair to me. Maybe not entirely "statistically fair", but that |
| 29 |
can only ever be approximated anyway. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives