El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200
> Peter Stuge <peter@...> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > bring this to the point where we can say something other than
> > > "huh?".
> > You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list
> > and asking for confirmation of your guess.
> > It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the
> > time offline - at least to me. I interpret, ask if I got it right,
> > then move on. It's pretty efficient, but requires both sender and
> > receiver wanting successful transmission.
> The issue is not that we don't understand the list. The issue is that
> we don't understand the problem (beyond superficially), how the
> proposed solution works from an ebuild perspective, whether the
> solution solves the problem, or how it all fits together. Most of the
> stuff on the list is irrelevant from a design perspective. It's not
> that the list is hard to understand, it's that understanding the
> problem and solution requires completely different material.
> To take one example, figuring out exactly which variables get mangled
> is an unimportant detail at this stage (and likely we'll want to
> offload it to profiles, not hard-code it in PMS) and not a central part
> of the proposal.
> What we need is a GLEP, describing it in high level terms with a
> discussion upon how it impacts users and ebuild developers, and a PMS
> patch, highlighting what's to be changed in specific technical terms.
What we *also* need is to document this requirements to let people
present that work directly instead of losing days figuring out what is
needed or what not