1 |
Zac Medico schrieb: |
2 |
> On 11/13/2011 03:09 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
3 |
>> Zac Medico schrieb: |
4 |
>>> On 11/13/2011 07:49 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Please give me a good reason, why i should by default do more things (adding quiet-build=n to the |
6 |
>>>> default emerge opts or searching for and opening the build.log) and what i or others do get from |
7 |
>>>> that. And less lines on the screen is no added value for me, it removes value. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> Why should we expose new users to legacy defaults that are useless to |
10 |
>>> more than 99% users, when they would most likely prefer the |
11 |
>>> --quiet-build display? |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Why should we change the default behaviour for existing users? Those, who dont want to see it, |
14 |
>> probably already use --jobs or quiet-build=y. For the rest, they either dont know about those |
15 |
>> options (which does not get better, if some default behaviour changes) or they dont want those |
16 |
>> options (in which case you force them to change their configuration/scripts/way to do things). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> When we change defaults, it affects everyone who hasn't yet overridden |
19 |
> the setting in EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. That's just how it is. |
20 |
|
21 |
So you have no problem changing the expected behaviour for the existing user, who already got used |
22 |
to the output or adjusted it themselves and might even rely on the verbose output? Additionally i |
23 |
have not seen any message from portage telling me about this change, so most users wont know, what |
24 |
changed or how to revert the change... |
25 |
|
26 |
I would at least expect some longer waiting period in the "discussion" before doing such changes or |
27 |
presenting some real numbers before doing such change. |
28 |
> |
29 |
>> Additionally, do you have any numbers about existing or new users and about the percentage, which |
30 |
>> would like the build output to be quiet? |
31 |
> |
32 |
> All I have is the feedback from this mailing list, an my own intuition. |
33 |
> My intuition says that --quiet-build is reasonable default that the |
34 |
> silent majority of people will welcome. |
35 |
> |
36 |
>> Otherwise i see such lines as guess and could say the same |
37 |
>> about the exact opposite view ;-) |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Well, my interpretation of this thread says that the response is |
40 |
> overwhelmingly positive, but I could be biased. ;) |
41 |
|
42 |
You are obviously biased, since you prefer the quiet output. ;-) |
43 |
The numbers of commenting people in here are way too low to say anything, but there is obviously no |
44 |
big majority for either side, which implies to me, that such a change should not have been done in |
45 |
the first place and should be reverted. |
46 |
And just for the record: If i am not responding during the next 14 (timeframe between suggestion and |
47 |
implementation) or more hours, this does not mean, that i changed my mind, it just means, that i |
48 |
have also other things to do ;-) |