1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200 |
2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding |
4 |
> (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent |
5 |
> issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star |
6 |
> to think Ciaran thinks it's easier to simply wear a blindfold on to |
7 |
> keep thinking all what he says cannot be corrected at all, neither |
8 |
> improved and others must follow his instructions blindly |
9 |
|
10 |
Oh come on. You're just shooting the messenger. You don't like being |
11 |
told that if you want something, someone needs to do the work, and you |
12 |
can't just say "I want a flying unicorn!" and expect it to happen. |
13 |
|
14 |
I'm not the only one saying it, either. I point you to this, for |
15 |
example: |
16 |
|
17 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml |
18 |
|
19 |
> Ciaran, simply think that, if PMS team agrees with a doc explaining |
20 |
> what needs to be provided and the procedure, you will also save time |
21 |
> and not need to follow this tedious discussions, all parts will |
22 |
> benefit for sure. |
23 |
|
24 |
The procedure is not the important part. The important part is finding |
25 |
someone who can do enough of the work that the PMS team can understand |
26 |
your proposal and polish off the rough edges. The work that needs to be |
27 |
done for that is very much a case by case thing, and it's not just a |
28 |
simple list of steps that anyone can follow blindly. The features |
29 |
you're asking for that aren't magically appearing are hard. |
30 |
|
31 |
I'll remind you that for "big" features, the GLEP process is already |
32 |
documented. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |