Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o>
To: George Shapovalov <george@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@g.o, gentoo-dev@g.o, dholm@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] portage-ng design competition -- not yet
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:42
Message-Id: 1070643286.6073.173.camel@ht.gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page by George Shapovalov
1 On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 02:58, George Shapovalov wrote:
2 > On Wednesday 03 December 2003 15:08, Daniel Robbins wrote:
3 > > I haven't looked at twisted, but a good solution suggested by nerdboy is
4 > > to have a design competition once we have the requirements finalized.
5 >
6 > So, we are going to do it according to "accepted practices" :).
7 > Seriously, I am glad to see it! And here is my entry ;).
8
9 Everyone, please note above that I said "have a design competition *once
10 we have the requirements finalized*." This hasn't happened yet. Please
11 focus on the capabilities you want in Portage first. Tell us about
12 these. These need to be documented first. Any design competition will
13 not begin until it is officially announced and until we have a set of
14 requirements for any submitted design to be judged by.
15
16 We need to clearly determine what we are shooting for before we choose a
17 language to get us there.
18
19 That being said, ADA is something I'd be comfortable with if the
20 proposed implementation can meet our requirements, and will be seriously
21 considered, and we will post george's proposal for ADA to the portage-ng
22 pages in the proper time (again, when he has the opportunity to see a
23 complete set of requirements for submissions, and explain how his
24 implementation would meet those requirements.)
25
26 But please, we have not decided on prolog, there is no need to
27 pre-emptively bash it (no pun intended.) Focus on submitting requests
28 for what you want portage-ng to be able to *do*, not what language you
29 think it should be coded in.
30
31 Look at it this way (this is something nerdboy explained to me) -- if we
32 have a solid set of requirements, we could have those requirements
33 implemented in *any* language, and as long as our requirements are met
34 fully, we would be happy with the outcome. That is what we want our
35 requirements to do for us, and why they are so important. I don't want
36 to add any "rigged" requirements that are designed to steer us towards
37 prolog, C, C++, python, ADA or anything else. Let's just document
38 clearly what we need and what we expect portage-ng to be able to do, and
39 the rest will be sorted out later.
40
41 If portability is important, put that in the requirements. Performance?
42 Put it in the requirements. etc etc. Choice of a particular language
43 over another will not guarantee that the resultant software will meet
44 our needs. Having something documented in the requirements will.
45
46 Regards,
47
48 Daniel

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies