1 |
I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, so I'm replying to |
2 |
the initial mail in this thread. |
3 |
|
4 |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
[snip proposition] |
6 |
|
7 |
Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really |
8 |
like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would not |
9 |
explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions |
10 |
get personal. The past is the past, don't insert indirect references |
11 |
to it and heat up the discussion. |
12 |
|
13 |
On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense |
14 |
get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if |
15 |
everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care |
16 |
if the proposal is perfect; as a potential user of those features, I |
17 |
want it to be implemented in portage in a reasonable time-frame. |
18 |
|
19 |
Over-engineering and then designing something to death is not the way |
20 |
to deliver said feature to the user. It's really stupid when the |
21 |
design document gets more attention than the implementation used by |
22 |
90% of our users. |
23 |
|
24 |
Also, what I'm about to say next may make your blood boil, but tbh, |
25 |
most of our users do not care about any package manager besides |
26 |
portage. If a feature cannot be delivered to portage users in a |
27 |
reasonable time-frame, it's useless. Either fix your design so it can |
28 |
be implemented in portage, or fix portage so your design can be |
29 |
implemented in it. Your choice. Don't say "Oh, use XXX package |
30 |
manager". |
31 |
|
32 |
Thank you for reading! |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
36 |
|
37 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |