| 1 |
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:02 +0200, Ramon van Alteren wrote: |
| 2 |
> To be clear, I'm willing to do all the work to get this implemented, I |
| 3 |
> already hacked up our current catalyst-2.0.1 install to do just this. |
| 4 |
> It is however rather hackish and i would like to get this in the main |
| 5 |
> tree. The patch would be against current svn. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm curious about a number of things: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> * Would this functionality be useful for more people on the list ? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What is stopping you from using an absolute path on the machines? If |
| 12 |
you control them, standardize on a checkout location. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> * Would this patch ever stand a chance of getting integrated ? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Not unless we can come up with some reason why we would need to add the |
| 17 |
code complexity to catalyst. Essentially, there would have to be a few |
| 18 |
use cases that would absolutely prohibit using absolute paths, otherwise |
| 19 |
I don't see a reason for changing it. This has been brought up before |
| 20 |
and always shot down simply because nobody could ever give me a reason |
| 21 |
why an absolute path wouldn't work for them and only a relative would. |
| 22 |
If you can show that what you want to do cannot be accomplished with the |
| 23 |
current code and absolute paths, then it would be accepted. Remember |
| 24 |
that simply making something easier for you isn't a valid reason for |
| 25 |
hacking up catalyst internals that much. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 30 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 31 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 32 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives