| 1 |
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a |
| 2 |
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it |
| 3 |
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?). |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
"Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools." |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
-Daniel Robbins |
| 8 |
Previous Chief Architect |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So unless that has changed and no one has updated the webpages... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I don't think Gentoo should be about finding the "perfect technical |
| 13 |
solution." You notice the quote doesn't say "perfect tools" or "the |
| 14 |
best tools", just better ones. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I don't think new projects should be subjected to some crazy GLEP |
| 17 |
process just because they might be relevant to the entire community at |
| 18 |
some point in the foreseeable future (which is every project). Hell I |
| 19 |
started TreeCleaners; We remove packages from the tree; where was the |
| 20 |
call for a GLEP then? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't savor the way this project was announced (I only know of it via |
| 23 |
Stuart's blog; and I personally would want some working stuff before |
| 24 |
making a project page); however I appreciate even less the amount of |
| 25 |
flak that he has taken for trying something new. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Once again; if you have technical considerations about his idea then I'm |
| 28 |
sure he would like to hear them. However I didn't see any in my |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev-ml scrollback; so I'll assume everyone has mostly baseless |
| 30 |
comments to make. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new |
| 33 |
idea; then why try at all. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-Alec |
| 36 |
antarus@g.o |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives