1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200 |
2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > bring this to the point where we can say something other than |
5 |
> > "huh?". |
6 |
> |
7 |
> You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list |
8 |
> and asking for confirmation of your guess. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the |
11 |
> time offline - at least to me. I interpret, ask if I got it right, |
12 |
> then move on. It's pretty efficient, but requires both sender and |
13 |
> receiver wanting successful transmission. |
14 |
|
15 |
The issue is not that we don't understand the list. The issue is that |
16 |
we don't understand the problem (beyond superficially), how the |
17 |
proposed solution works from an ebuild perspective, whether the |
18 |
solution solves the problem, or how it all fits together. Most of the |
19 |
stuff on the list is irrelevant from a design perspective. It's not |
20 |
that the list is hard to understand, it's that understanding the |
21 |
problem and solution requires completely different material. |
22 |
|
23 |
To take one example, figuring out exactly which variables get mangled |
24 |
is an unimportant detail at this stage (and likely we'll want to |
25 |
offload it to profiles, not hard-code it in PMS) and not a central part |
26 |
of the proposal. |
27 |
|
28 |
What we need is a GLEP, describing it in high level terms with a |
29 |
discussion upon how it impacts users and ebuild developers, and a PMS |
30 |
patch, highlighting what's to be changed in specific technical terms. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |