| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:04, David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't |
| 4 |
> Ciaran. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> As for the topic: the only real concern about VALID_USE that I've seen from |
| 10 |
> anyone is about whether Portage can implement it reasonably soon. Since |
| 11 |
> some |
| 12 |
> people think it can, how about picking some reasonable time period |
| 13 |
> (allowing |
| 14 |
> for bikeshedding about the syntax, of course), and if VALID_USE isn't |
| 15 |
> supported in Portage by then but EAPI 4 is otherwise ready then we postpone |
| 16 |
> VALID_USE until later? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
Here's another suggestion: how about we don't impose any ridiculous |
| 19 |
constraints on development and keep this discussion on the technological |
| 20 |
side of the original proposal? If the only concerns are about the time it |
| 21 |
will take to implement, then this suggestion must be perfect in all aspects |
| 22 |
and so we should probably wait until it's done, even if is takes a loooong |
| 23 |
time! |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I really like this attitude, though. Once you're done criticizing the |
| 26 |
technological aspects of some proposal you start raising concerns about how |
| 27 |
hard it is to implement features for Portage, how long that takes, etc. |
| 28 |
Well, since that's not really constructive, I suggest you keep those |
| 29 |
concerns to yourself. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dror Levin |
Archives