| 1 |
On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:49:08 Joshua Saddler wrote: |
| 2 |
> Wrong. It will. The GDP--that's effectively just me--will already have to |
| 3 |
> rewrite every single one of hundreds of pages of documentation to allow |
| 4 |
> for the new syntax and way of doing things present in the "oldnet" |
| 5 |
> behavior of OpenRC. That's ~weeks to ~months of work, even if there's |
| 6 |
> someone besides me doing it. I'll have to do all that effort and time |
| 7 |
> commitment yet again if we have to rewrite everything once "newnet" |
| 8 |
> becomes the default after everyone uses "oldnet" for a while. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
man, fix your line length. what a nub you are. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Please. Just stick to *one* config. I strongly suggest that it be "oldnet," |
| 13 |
> given all the problems with "newnet" raised in this thread. But more |
| 14 |
> importantly, because *the groundork has already been done* when I wrote |
| 15 |
> the OpenRC Migration Guide. I can piggyback all my efforts off that guide, |
| 16 |
> which will greatly shorten the amount of time needed for the rest of the |
| 17 |
> documentation. Otherwise a completely new "migration" guide will have to |
| 18 |
> be written, AND all the docs will need to be adjusted to THAT one. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
we're going with oldnet by default in stable and that'll be what the GDP has |
| 21 |
to worry about. newnet will still be there, but people will have to manually |
| 22 |
opt out of oldnet and opt in to newnet. i dont think we need to worry about |
| 23 |
documenting it in the handbook for now ... the bundled files with openrc are |
| 24 |
sufficient. |
| 25 |
-mike |
Archives