| 1 |
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:33:50 +0100 Grobian <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
| > | Which means you won't be able to satisfy your "preemptive" |
| 4 |
| > | requirement. |
| 5 |
| > |
| 6 |
| > Not at all. You can warn users repeatedly, but there comes a point |
| 7 |
| > when trying to warn them any further becomes futile. |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
| Then what is the point of this GLEP? Instead, just warn people |
| 10 |
| through existing intrastructure, which is cheap from an engineering |
| 11 |
| perspective because everything is already there in place, and don't |
| 12 |
| think of implementing all kinds of extras just to warn a user one |
| 13 |
| extra time, since "trying to warn them any further becomes futile" |
| 14 |
| anyway. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The current warning levels we have are insufficient. This GLEP proposes |
| 17 |
a new system for warnings which will be far harder to accidentally |
| 18 |
ignore. There are, however, limits to how far we can reasonably go |
| 19 |
before we make the solution worse than the problem. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Anti-XML, anti-newbie conspiracy) |
| 23 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 24 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives