| 1 |
Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: |
| 2 |
> Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> That's what this commits review list feels like. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some |
| 10 |
> issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. |
| 11 |
> It doesn't matter if you can "rattle off capabilities to a millimeter" - |
| 12 |
> if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the |
| 13 |
> ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it |
| 14 |
> all over again. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> jonathan. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. |
| 20 |
Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite of |
| 23 |
the right thing. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience |
| 26 |
with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package |
| 27 |
XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means |
| 28 |
experience. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives