| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:08:45 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> But when you say "worth the complexity", I'm not exactly sure what |
| 4 |
> your standards of "worthiness" are. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I don't think the human cognition of a 2-level versioning scheme is |
| 7 |
> that tricky, so I assume you must mean complexity in the internals of |
| 8 |
> package managers - but this should just be a Simple Matter Of |
| 9 |
> Programming. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're |
| 12 |
already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs |
| 13 |
because people can't keep track of when features came along. Two levels |
| 14 |
just means no-one will remember any of it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
For the package manager, it's just a bit of added mess, not any major |
| 17 |
difficulty. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> (Of course I have no idea if people actually would accept a two-level |
| 20 |
> EAPI any more than glep-55 as-is... I just think it addresses the |
| 21 |
> concerns I've heard in this thread in a way that does not break |
| 22 |
> the valid solutions to real problems presented in glep-55) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
People are opposed to 55 because of a knee-jerk reaction against |
| 25 |
changing file extensions and against doing anything that comes from |
| 26 |
the great Satan and all his little minions... If you're going to throw |
| 27 |
an equivalent but supposedly compromising solution at people, go for |
| 28 |
'.eapi3.eb' instead. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives