1 |
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400 |
4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread |
6 |
>> - a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Wrong. The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely |
9 |
> because we've accumulated so much "good enough" and "not thinking your |
10 |
> cunning plan all the way through" that nothing is actually correct any |
11 |
> more. |
12 |
|
13 |
I think we might be saying the same thing in different ways. I wasn't |
14 |
suggesting that we should implement solutions that fail in random |
15 |
ways, but rather that if necessary we should focus more on simpler |
16 |
solutions that we can get right, but which perhaps don't cover all of |
17 |
our problems. |
18 |
|
19 |
That is, I'm more for a perfect solution for a small problem rather |
20 |
than a good-enough solution (which isn't) for a big problem. |
21 |
|
22 |
For example, perhaps there is a way to safely add an unconditional |
23 |
dependency to an installed package. That won't solve every dependency |
24 |
problem, but it could be helpful. |
25 |
|
26 |
Another way to go about things would be to try to find ways to reduce |
27 |
the chance of commiting a package that has an incorrect dependency in |
28 |
the first place, so that we don't have to fix so many mistakes. Then |
29 |
perhaps the extra rebuilds when there is a rare mistake might be more |
30 |
forgivable. |
31 |
|
32 |
Rich |