1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:02 +0200, Ramon van Alteren wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> To be clear, I'm willing to do all the work to get this implemented, I |
5 |
>> already hacked up our current catalyst-2.0.1 install to do just this. |
6 |
>> It is however rather hackish and i would like to get this in the main |
7 |
>> tree. The patch would be against current svn. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> I'm curious about a number of things: |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> * Would this functionality be useful for more people on the list ? |
12 |
>> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> What is stopping you from using an absolute path on the machines? If |
15 |
> you control them, standardize on a checkout location. |
16 |
> |
17 |
To be honest, nothing, it's a nuisance or an itch that's driving this |
18 |
request not a necessity. |
19 |
Most of us develop on laptops and commit code once it works, with |
20 |
deadline pressure as it is this tends to fuck up paths in the specfiles, |
21 |
which need to be reverted, yadadada. |
22 |
Apart from that having the ability to checkout both devel- and |
23 |
production-branches on the same buildmachine without the need to change |
24 |
the paths in the specfiles would be cool. |
25 |
>> * Would this patch ever stand a chance of getting integrated ? |
26 |
>> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Not unless we can come up with some reason why we would need to add the |
29 |
> code complexity to catalyst. Essentially, there would have to be a few |
30 |
> use cases that would absolutely prohibit using absolute paths, otherwise |
31 |
> I don't see a reason for changing it. This has been brought up before |
32 |
> and always shot down simply because nobody could ever give me a reason |
33 |
> why an absolute path wouldn't work for them and only a relative would. |
34 |
> If you can show that what you want to do cannot be accomplished with the |
35 |
> current code and absolute paths, then it would be accepted. |
36 |
|
37 |
OK, clear enough. |
38 |
I can't think of a use-case where absolute paths will not work and |
39 |
relative paths will, I have trouble finding such a use-case in general. |
40 |
If that's the criteria then I guess it's a doomed enhancement request. |
41 |
|
42 |
> Remember that simply making something easier for you isn't a valid reason for |
43 |
> hacking up catalyst internals that much. |
44 |
> |
45 |
This puzzles me, if making a tool easier to use for it's users isn't a |
46 |
valid reason for hacking at the tool, then what is ? |
47 |
I understand issues with code-quality, reluctance to touch internals and |
48 |
show me code before talk.......... |
49 |
|
50 |
It was a dual request, if nobody on list would be using the |
51 |
functionality I'll maintain a patch outside the tree for our benefit. |
52 |
No sense in intergrating then. |
53 |
|
54 |
Best regards, |
55 |
|
56 |
Ramon |
57 |
-- |
58 |
gentoo-catalyst@g.o mailing list |