[gentoo-dev] It's just a bit of bash..

[Steve Long]

RFC on script
  Hi I'd like some feedback from devs as to the potentially negative
implications of a script I have written to wrap emerge (groan!) It's linked
here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-546828.html
- and here is sample output from a gcc build: http://phpfi.com/214168
  I'm particularly interested in feedback from the PMTs (Package Management
Trio and their co-devs) wrt to tree problems, or anyone who can point out
stuff I should be doing differently +eg 'cos of losing important emerge
output or re: bash- ie gentoo devs. Feedback on script, if such you have,
to either private email or the user forum, please.
(And if you're there, can you pop into the user reps forum and remind usrs
that you like 'em really, and no, the distro isn't going to fall apart.
It's not just pkgs that need love..)

Client/server:
Recent post about samba client install:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-544664.html
Poll with not many votes but a clear indication (quick, vote against..)
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-525893.html

Possible Enhancements (aka stuff to nick besides +ve thinking)
  Triage is a concept in WINE that enables usrs to help with the
bug-wrangling process: http://kegel.com/wine/qa/#triage
  Maybe something like that would be useful for gentoo. You certainly have
enough users on the forums who want to give something back, but don't have
the time nor inclination to become a dev. And getting them to help on bugs
would both take some pressure off (eventually) and give them insight into
the whole tortuous process.
  KDE bug tracker:
- wish list (enhancement requests but nicer)
- votes on bugs, so usrs can say "this affects me" even if wranglers think
it 'obvious' to fix
- *junior jobs* - minor jobs are posted on-site for anyone to have a go at

The nature of discussion v debate
  In the UK a debate has always meant an argument. I see from
dictionary.browse.com.reference or whatever it's called that in the US to
debate can actually mean to reflect (as in an internal debate?) Thankfully
the first meaning given for the noun is that of an argument. The point is
that in a debate there are /opposing/ points of view.
  The scientific method is to achieve consensus via peer review. As Kuhn
pointed out, the way this happens is by avoidance of contra-indicatory data
(I'm paraphrasing) ie this doesn't fit my world model so I'm gonna ignore
it. This leads to the eventual breakdown of the model, and a "paradigm
shift." (Also known as a "course correction" in the political world.)
  Where I'm going with this is that you cannot avoid disagreements. It is in
the nature of the beast to compete, to feel hurt by unkind comments, to
attach meaning to noises, yadda yadda. Given this, it is imperative that
one plan for those disagreements. So yeah, try to keep it technical all you
like, but don't pretend for one minute that development in the real world
is only technical. If that were true, we'd all be watching betamax tapes;
and running DR-DOS with a Xerox interface.
  Now there's a nice idea.. ;P

Sorry for length.

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list