| 1 |
On 15/12/2022 20.22, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
| 2 |
> As everyone knows, there is nothing better than to change the workflow |
| 3 |
> that has served you well over multiple years. But apparently the |
| 4 |
> PORTDIR_OVERLAY approach works well for others, so I am confident that I |
| 5 |
> (and others) will be able to make the transition with a minimal amount |
| 6 |
> of ranting. ;) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
As it was pointed out that some consider my wording here inappropriate |
| 9 |
and/or rude, I want to apologize to everyone who was offended by the |
| 10 |
prior paragraph. I had |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
https://xkcd.com/1172/ |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
in mind when writing it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I was also criticized for not providing a rationale for the behavior |
| 17 |
change in portage. The motivation is driven by the noble goal to make |
| 18 |
portage more user friendly and robust. Which I fully support. Just like |
| 19 |
I support shallow clones per default. I just believe portage should do a |
| 20 |
better job figuring out if it potentially messes with a "user-owned" |
| 21 |
repository and adjust its behavior accordingly. In a similar spirit I |
| 22 |
submitted https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/960 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- Flow |
Archives