| 1 |
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:49:18 +0530 |
| 2 |
"Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> This might be the clean way to do it, but the unfortunate truth is |
| 4 |
> that new EAPIs seem to be becoming "standard" pretty darn slowly, and |
| 5 |
> counting on one to implement a feature that is definitely very useful |
| 6 |
> for QA seems to be miring ourselves in unnecessary bureaucracy. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Also, this does not have to cause breakage if done incrementally, so |
| 9 |
> the net loss is nil, and the net gain is getting a useful feature in a |
| 10 |
> relatively short, deterministic period of time rather than otherwise. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Why don't you ask the Portage people to implement what you're after as |
| 13 |
EAPI 2 next week? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
EAPI in no way slows down progress -- quite the opposite, since it |
| 16 |
allows changes to go through, safely, straight away. What slows down |
| 17 |
progress is that the Portage people don't care enough to implement most |
| 18 |
things, no matter how trivial and useful they are. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives