1 |
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:59:21 +0100 |
2 |
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> All of engineering involves compromise. |
4 |
|
5 |
It's not a question of compromise. It's a question of being right vs |
6 |
being wrong. If one person says that 2 + 2 = 4 and a loud mob screams |
7 |
that their prophet revealed to them in a blog post that 2 + 2 = 6, you |
8 |
don't compromise and say that 2 + 2 = 5. |
9 |
|
10 |
> There is no point in waiting for a perfect solution to an engineering |
11 |
> issue if that solution is so far away nobody wants to wait. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The compromises become political discussions and we have seen plenty |
14 |
> of them already. As its 'the masses' that will implement the |
15 |
> solution, not the idealists, its time to go with the compromise that |
16 |
> has been hammered out elsewhere ... unless of course the idealists |
17 |
> have a patch already. |
18 |
|
19 |
You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution |
20 |
have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still a lot of |
21 |
work that would need to be done, and that work will have to be carried |
22 |
on by every developer indefinitely as new versions of packages come |
23 |
out. It's a case of "the wrong thing requires quite a lot more work |
24 |
before it's ready, and once it's ready everyone will have to carry on |
25 |
working on it forever". |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |