| 1 |
On 03/31/12 23:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:30:07 +0800 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working |
| 5 |
>>> are greater than 0%"? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I said better ... not repetitive trolls. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> If you cared about making things better you'd spend more time writing |
| 10 |
>> patches and less time trying to pick fights on public mailinglists :) |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> But I guess small minds, small pleasures ... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What Gentoo needs is less immediate writing of patches and more careful |
| 15 |
> thinking about how a complex mess of sort-of working, poorly |
| 16 |
> interacting features can be unified into a smaller number of correct, |
| 17 |
> coherent concepts. Right now most of the patches are fixing screwups in |
| 18 |
> earlier patches that were caused by implementing the wrong thing (and |
| 19 |
> often introducing new problems along the way). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The fact that you have code that does something does not automatically |
| 22 |
> imply that doing it is a good idea. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
... and now we train not sending private messages to public mailing |
| 26 |
lists again, mmmhkay? After so many years you still accidentally do such |
| 27 |
things on purpose. Not cool. |
Archives