1 |
This is becoming a rather lengthy email ping pong, but as people seem to be |
2 |
unable to discuss things I had to highlight a few issues there. |
3 |
|
4 |
Short version: |
5 |
|
6 |
- Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels better" don't |
7 |
add anything to the discussion and are objectively wrong for me, so they have |
8 |
no place in a technical discussion |
9 |
|
10 |
- Repeating things doesn't make them more true. If someone disagrees use |
11 |
technical arguments, microbenchmarks or whatever else is needed to show that |
12 |
the argument is wrong (or at least severely flawed) instead of ignoring it. |
13 |
|
14 |
- Start with the problem, not the solution. If you cannot define the problem |
15 |
then there's a good chance your solution isn't. Don't ignore facts if they'd |
16 |
show that your solution is a sad puppy that should get euthanised. |
17 |
|
18 |
- Keep your cool. If you are right there's no need to immediately fire back an |
19 |
email. Take your time, disassemble the arguments (or lack thereof) the other |
20 |
side provides instead of playing semantic game or trying to use logical |
21 |
fallacies to make you sound more better. |
22 |
|
23 |
Posting on this mailinglist is a privilege, not a right. Be careful not to |
24 |
lose it. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
On Thursday 28 May 2009 01:45:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
30 |
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 23:26:25 +0000 (UTC) |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Mark Bateman <couldbe@××××.com> wrote: |
33 |
> > NOT once within GLEP55 or in all the ml posts over all the *MONTHS* |
34 |
> > has there been unequivocal proof that encoding metadata into the |
35 |
> > filename of an ebuild is a necessity, so please stop playing that |
36 |
> > tune it is getting boring |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Not once has there been an equally good alternative proposed. |
39 |
|
40 |
That's subjective, and let me be the first one to disagree. GLEP55 in its |
41 |
current form (rev. 1.5 at the moment, we need to state the revision so we know |
42 |
what we are actually talking about because it mutates ...) is definitely not |
43 |
the best solution if you (even momentarily) allow other solutions to exist. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
> > > GLEP titles are required to be short. |
47 |
Yes, that is a reasonable demand. It is completely independent of the demand |
48 |
that the title describes the _problem_ and not your solution. Please try to |
49 |
improve your reading comprehension to the point where we can discuss instead |
50 |
of having several independent monologues. |
51 |
|
52 |
> > Even with title length restrictions the title can easily be improved. |
53 |
> > At present it tells the skim reader NOTHING except it is todo with |
54 |
> > encoding EAPI into the filename. |
55 |
> > |
56 |
> > "Means to determine EAPI of ebuild" |
57 |
> > 7 less characters AND actually provides some description of what this |
58 |
> > GLEP is going to cover not some BS "WTF" title. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Doesn't cover the intent of the enhancement. The intent of the |
61 |
> enhancement is to use EAPI suffixed ebuilds. |
62 |
|
63 |
No, the intent is to find a better way to determine the EAPI. One proposed |
64 |
solution is the use of a suffix. Please stop trying to distract people in |
65 |
semantic games, it is dishonest. |
66 |
|
67 |
> |
68 |
> > > Because that's down in the 'Problem' section. Your argument appears |
69 |
> > > to be that no individual paragraph covers every last bit of |
70 |
> > > material in the GLEP. |
71 |
> > |
72 |
> > No it is not. That is not an abstract, that is jumping straight in |
73 |
> > with the proposed solution. That is not what an abstraction/summary |
74 |
> > is for. There is no (formal) length restriction on the abstraction |
75 |
> > section so it should be taken advantage of. |
76 |
|
77 |
This is an important point - define the problem first, then discuss solutions. |
78 |
Otherwise you end up in circular reasoning that we need to do something so |
79 |
that something is done (which is quite fun and maybe even a tautology, but has |
80 |
no information content and can thus be classified as "white noise") |
81 |
> > |
82 |
> > The abstract/summary is to allow those that have a quick look into |
83 |
> > the paper (after looking at a relevant title...) to tell if it |
84 |
> > relevant to their interest and whether they should read any further. |
85 |
> > OR in a big discussion, where a paper is referred to as a logging |
86 |
> > number, people can quickly ascertain what it is discussing - very |
87 |
> > important ifmany papers are referenced in a discussion |
88 |
> |
89 |
> Yes, and the quick summary of the GLEP is that EAPI suffixed file |
90 |
> extensions should be used for ebuilds. |
91 |
|
92 |
No, that is the solution favoured by one group of people. All other solutions |
93 |
are ignored by rephrasing the problem to be the solution and the solution to |
94 |
be the obvious solution to itself. |
95 |
|
96 |
> You're being overly harsh on Piotr there. GLEPs aren't supposed to be |
97 |
> written to peer review journal standards -- they're supposed to be |
98 |
> technical material that can be understood by the appropriate audience |
99 |
> and used to propose an enhancement, not something that has to stand in |
100 |
> archives for a thousand years. |
101 |
And still one would expect a minimal coherence - stating the problem (not |
102 |
there), discussing alternatives (incomplete and phrased in a way to make them |
103 |
look extra bad) and maybe a comparison (mostly missing). |
104 |
|
105 |
Maybe even the impact of the solution, possible issues etc. |
106 |
You know, what we have been discussing on this mailinglist ... |
107 |
|
108 |
> > > Uhm. No. With the current rules, the package manager cannot parse |
109 |
> > > the ebuild. It has to use a full bash source. |
110 |
> > |
111 |
> > So ... maybe the rules are wrong and they also need to be changed for |
112 |
> > the complete solution to be realised. |
113 |
|
114 |
Which points at a simple solution that gets mostly ignored: Since we already |
115 |
state EAPI explicitly we can restrict ourselves to parsing it (with a regexp, |
116 |
maybe) instead of having to source the ebuild. Which has to happen anyway as |
117 |
soon as you need metadata ... |
118 |
|
119 |
> Congratulations. That is what this whole thing is about, and GLEP 55 |
120 |
> presents the best way of doing that changing. |
121 |
|
122 |
No, GLEP55 is the hackish way of sweeping it under the rug. Feel free to |
123 |
implement it in an experimental overlay and report back what your experiences |
124 |
are in, say, 3 months ... |
125 |
|
126 |
> > Parse the ebuild, determine the EAPI, |
127 |
> > configure PackageManager, source ebuild. Problem solved. QED. |
128 |
> > |
129 |
> > I wonder what portage does at the moment... |
130 |
Mostly look at the metadata cache, but for this discussion we have to pretend |
131 |
that caching can't work instead of improving it. |
132 |
|
133 |
> It uses bash to do the sourcing, as it has to. And the GLEP covers why |
134 |
> the file extension method is better than parsing to get EAPI. |
135 |
|
136 |
Subjective. See above. Repetition is repetitious. |
137 |
|
138 |
> > Definition of problem is flawed within GLEP55 |
139 |
> |
140 |
> No, the definition of the problem is entirely accurate and correct. |
141 |
|
142 |
... wait, you defined the problem now? I thought GLEP55 was all about the |
143 |
solution. Or are you deliberately trying a switch-and-bate ? |
144 |
|
145 |
> |
146 |
> > > Have you ever read a technical paper? They start off with a brief |
147 |
> > > introduction that doesn't contain details, then move on to the |
148 |
> > > details later on. |
149 |
> > |
150 |
> > WHAT! |
151 |
> > 1) The title of this GLEP is all about the solution |
152 |
> |
153 |
> The title describes the desired enhancement, yes. |
154 |
... which completely ignores stating the problem. |
155 |
|
156 |
> > 2) the Abstraction is all about the solution |
157 |
> |
158 |
> The abstract describes the desired enhancement in more detail, yes. |
159 |
... enhancing what to achieve what why? |
160 |
|
161 |
> > THEN finally we get the actual problem |
162 |
> |
163 |
> The main proposal then expands upon the background and reasoning behind |
164 |
> the enhancement, yes. |
165 |
Oh, you gotta read it backwards. That's awesome. No wait, the other thing. |
166 |
Stupid! |
167 |
|
168 |
> > > It's a simple statement of fact. |
169 |
> > |
170 |
> > if it *fact* provide results, provide details of how the results were |
171 |
> > obtained, provide details so others may reproduce independently, if |
172 |
> > they want. Such things should be in the paper. |
173 |
> |
174 |
> It's true by definition. |
175 |
Tautologies are fun, but irrelevant to discussing technical issues. |
176 |
|
177 |
> It's not something that's only true as a |
178 |
> result of an implementation; implementations can be improved, but |
179 |
> penalties from definition can't be fixed. |
180 |
Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to parse that. Does that mean that we need to |
181 |
abstractly discuss various options (which would go against your interpretation |
182 |
of the process), or does that mean that the idea of glep55 is flawed (which |
183 |
would be a rather interesting concession coming from you)? |
184 |
|
185 |
> |
186 |
> > encoding the EAPI into the filename does not provide any additional |
187 |
> > benefits over encoding it in a pre-defined position within the files |
188 |
> > data + one-off extension change. |
189 |
I think we'd need to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both |
190 |
approaches to be sure about that. |
191 |
|
192 |
> This is covered by GLEP 55. |
193 |
No, not at all. |
194 |
|
195 |
> > Infact it has already been stated: |
196 |
> > "Adding metadata to the filename is not required and is bad system |
197 |
> > design practice" |
198 |
> |
199 |
> Stating something doesn't make it true. You could just as easily argue |
200 |
> that having PV in the filename is bad. |
201 |
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Reasonable discussion would be the best |
202 |
thing to do now ... are you willing to do that instead of running in circles |
203 |
and barking the same dog-matic statements? |
204 |
|
205 |
> |
206 |
> > Now if there is an actual technical reason, a reason that isn't |
207 |
> > present in GLEP55, then it is further proof that GLEPP55 is not |
208 |
> > suitable for the task and needs to be rejected in its present form |
209 |
> |
210 |
> The reason is that there is no equally good alternative. |
211 |
|
212 |
The reason is that GLEP55 is no reasonable alternative to the rest. |
213 |
|
214 |
See, stating things is easy. Now let's get this iceberg back on collision |
215 |
course with the titanic and resume a technical discussion please ... |