| 1 |
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > bring this to the point where we can say something other than |
| 6 |
> > > "huh?". |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list |
| 9 |
> > and asking for confirmation of your guess. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the |
| 12 |
> > time offline - at least to me. I interpret, ask if I got it right, |
| 13 |
> > then move on. It's pretty efficient, but requires both sender and |
| 14 |
> > receiver wanting successful transmission. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The issue is not that we don't understand the list. The issue is that |
| 17 |
> we don't understand the problem (beyond superficially), how the |
| 18 |
> proposed solution works from an ebuild perspective, whether the |
| 19 |
> solution solves the problem, or how it all fits together. Most of the |
| 20 |
> stuff on the list is irrelevant from a design perspective. It's not |
| 21 |
> that the list is hard to understand, it's that understanding the |
| 22 |
> problem and solution requires completely different material. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> To take one example, figuring out exactly which variables get mangled |
| 25 |
> is an unimportant detail at this stage (and likely we'll want to |
| 26 |
> offload it to profiles, not hard-code it in PMS) and not a central part |
| 27 |
> of the proposal. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> What we need is a GLEP, describing it in high level terms with a |
| 30 |
> discussion upon how it impacts users and ebuild developers, and a PMS |
| 31 |
> patch, highlighting what's to be changed in specific technical terms. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
What we *also* need is to document this requirements to let people |
| 35 |
present that work directly instead of losing days figuring out what is |
| 36 |
needed or what not |
Archives