1 |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the |
5 |
>>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would |
6 |
>>> outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for |
7 |
>>> dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to |
8 |
>>> remember both. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> I agree it is a con, but is it a blocker? I mean basically any change |
11 |
>> proposed requires know the old way, and the new way..that is how |
12 |
>> changes work... |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Which is why changes need to have clear benefits that outweigh the |
15 |
> costs of change. In this case the benefits are purely cosmetic, so |
16 |
> they don't. Change for change' sake is not worth the effort. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> -- |
19 |
> Cheers, |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Ben | yngwin |
22 |
> Gentoo developer |
23 |
> Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
I'm sorry. Are you reading the same threads that I am? |
27 |
|
28 |
From the other thread ("example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps |
29 |
to unified dependencies"): |
30 |
|
31 |
> 1) This unifies the existing syntax down into a collapsed form. In |
32 |
> doing so, there are measurable gains across the board for PM |
33 |
> efficiency and rsync alone. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> 2) In unifying the syntax via reusing our /existing fucking syntax/, |
36 |
> we formalize the adhoc common dependency assignments devs already are |
37 |
> doing in the tree. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> 3) In moving to a unified syntax, it positions us to easily introduce |
40 |
> new dependency types without introducing more redundancy. Easier to |
41 |
> add new dep types, faster to add new dep types, more efficient in |
42 |
> doing so in comparison to existing approaches, and done in a fashion |
43 |
> that devs can reuse existing conditionals. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> 4) It is not exherbo's DEPENDENCIES. Meaning it is not label based. |
46 |
> Meaning you do not need to knee-jerk attack it because of some notion |
47 |
> it's ciaran based/related. |
48 |
|
49 |
I know you must have seen this (and the rest...). You've participated |
50 |
in that thread. |