| 1 |
On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote: |
| 3 |
>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to |
| 4 |
>> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* |
| 5 |
>> . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 |
| 6 |
>> team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing |
| 7 |
>> up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?! |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone. we're talking |
| 10 |
> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only |
| 11 |
> available in unstable. expecting everything in testing to be documented up |
| 12 |
> front is unreasonable. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
While true in general, I cannot agree with you in this case. This is |
| 15 |
not some random app we are talking about. It is a change in init |
| 16 |
scripts that might render our servers inaccessible if things go wrong. |
| 17 |
Please bear in mind that we have servers operating in datacenters in |
| 18 |
other countries and network loss is the worst kind of bug you can |
| 19 |
inflict upon us. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
There is no documantation upstream. At least we have some docs in g.o |
| 22 |
(kudos to whomever wrote it) but it is old (there is no mention of |
| 23 |
oldnet USE flag for example). And IUSE="... +oldnet ..." is too fragile |
| 24 |
a solution. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
All I am saying is that this is a so important change that we should |
| 27 |
have gotten it right from the beginning. Openrc should not have been |
| 28 |
unmasked without proper documentation. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Eray |
Archives