| 1 |
Am Sonntag 06 Mai 2007 22:38 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:33:55 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 6 |
> > > On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Dan Meltzer <hydrogen@×××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > >>> Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the "requires an |
| 10 |
> > >>> explicit read" problem. Making elog require an explicit read would |
| 11 |
> > >>> be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've |
| 12 |
> > >>> been over this already. |
| 13 |
> > >> |
| 14 |
> > >> Not if one filters it properly. ELOG_CLASSES="warn error" sounds |
| 15 |
> > >> like a sane default to me. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn |
| 18 |
> > > notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by |
| 19 |
> > > overusing it. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Why would you acknowledge them? They are a different feature (plus, |
| 22 |
> > seriously no mail gets automagically marked as read, if you use the |
| 23 |
> > mail elog feature e.g. Maybe you should actually try to use the stuff |
| 24 |
> > before recycling your 'our experience shows' and 'elog sucks' |
| 25 |
> > scratched record once again.) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Maybe you should reread the context I've quoted. Dan is proposing |
| 28 |
> making elog require explicit acknowledgements. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> > Plus, why's this thread been hijacked again for the paludis upgrade |
| 31 |
> > stuff that doesn't need any news at all and that's been committed in |
| 32 |
> > breach of GLEP42 itself?! |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Because some people won't stop looking for any available excuse to rant |
| 35 |
> about anything that has or can be made to have 'paludis' in it, and |
| 36 |
> they don't bother to read the rest of the discussion before they do so. |
| 37 |
Talking about yourself again? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> > - drop this "users like it" and "experience has shown" stuff. |
| 40 |
> > Experience based on 4 news items is no experience at all; experience |
| 41 |
> > based on one-package overlay is irrelevant wrt a repository with |
| 42 |
> > thousands of ebuilds; and "users like it" may be nice for one package |
| 43 |
> > overlay, and a genuine PITA for a tree with thousands of ebuilds at |
| 44 |
> > the same time. Repeating it doesn't go anywhere, nor will it make any |
| 45 |
> > of your point more valid. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> And yet it's infinitely more experience than anyone else has at this |
| 48 |
> point. When there's a better collection of data available we'll use |
| 49 |
> that instead. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
It might be infinitely more, yet it still isnt worth anything for the reasons |
| 52 |
already explained which you, I guess, have accidently overlooked again. |
| 53 |
I bet your users wont like reading zillions of - for gods sake - very very |
| 54 |
trivial news items for each and every package that hits the tree or they |
| 55 |
upgrade or what so ever else. |
| 56 |
And if your expierence shows they will do like this, just write all the news |
| 57 |
items, and put them up your own repository, at let your happy users read them |
| 58 |
from there. |
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives