| 1 |
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding |
| 5 |
> > (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent |
| 6 |
> > issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star |
| 7 |
> > to think Ciaran thinks it's easier to simply wear a blindfold on to |
| 8 |
> > keep thinking all what he says cannot be corrected at all, neither |
| 9 |
> > improved and others must follow his instructions blindly |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Oh come on. You're just shooting the messenger. You don't like being |
| 12 |
> told that if you want something, someone needs to do the work, and you |
| 13 |
> can't just say "I want a flying unicorn!" and expect it to happen. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'm not the only one saying it, either. I point you to this, for |
| 16 |
> example: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_86b67d8ab51a24922a3d3be75d10f42b.xml |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That shows how things can be done and how shouldn't be done, it's not |
| 21 |
casual that you are always involved in this kind of discussions, instead |
| 22 |
of thinking all people is trying to "shoot the messenger", maybe you |
| 23 |
should think about you acts here (I know it's difficult, specially when |
| 24 |
discussions are done virtually and not in real world where you, |
| 25 |
probably, would understand better that your way of demanding things and |
| 26 |
putting conditions is not the way to go). Making constructive |
| 27 |
suggestions instead of others that can be easily interpreted as whims is |
| 28 |
the way to go. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> > Ciaran, simply think that, if PMS team agrees with a doc explaining |
| 32 |
> > what needs to be provided and the procedure, you will also save time |
| 33 |
> > and not need to follow this tedious discussions, all parts will |
| 34 |
> > benefit for sure. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> The procedure is not the important part. The important part is finding |
| 37 |
> someone who can do enough of the work that the PMS team can understand |
| 38 |
> your proposal and polish off the rough edges. The work that needs to be |
| 39 |
> done for that is very much a case by case thing, and it's not just a |
| 40 |
> simple list of steps that anyone can follow blindly. The features |
| 41 |
> you're asking for that aren't magically appearing are hard. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> I'll remind you that for "big" features, the GLEP process is already |
| 44 |
> documented. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
You know what I exactly mean, don't try to change the topic to "GLEP |
| 48 |
process is already documented" to hide you don't want to put anything of |
| 49 |
your time to help others to get proper documentation prepared to show to |
| 50 |
pms team. Of course, you have the right to do so as this is all |
| 51 |
contribution work that we do it if we want and have time, but don't try |
| 52 |
to hide it in this way. |
Archives