| 1 |
Hello All, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
As there are questions at to what we vote. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
---------------------------------------------- |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Thank you for all our feedback! |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
In project like that I can't rush to programming it without |
| 10 |
everyone's approval. This part of the project should have been |
| 11 |
implemented with the first portage version by it's creator. But as |
| 12 |
I'm not this person I'll need the expertise of the whole community. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Let's agree on following - I'll design the system in details on paper |
| 15 |
but no code will be produced at this stage. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
When it's ready (~ 1.5 months) I'll get back here and share the design |
| 18 |
sketches with you. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Then we all review it again everyone could contribute it's own view |
| 21 |
and part and help to avoid some design problems if there are. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I need an agreement on this stage from the list. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If you consider PortageQOS is not necessary please vote NO. |
| 26 |
If you consider PortageQOS might have a chance and it depends on |
| 27 |
implementation say YES. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Please vote. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If NO there is no need to spend time even on sketches. |
| 34 |
If YES - there will be a system design ready and we could at least |
| 35 |
imagine how it might work as a whole and benefits it might bring. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
PS |
| 40 |
No way PortageQOS will work without uniform agreement. That thing |
| 41 |
was missing from portage design from the start and now with the legacy |
| 42 |
it's either everyone is willing to give it a try or none. I don't want |
| 43 |
to push somebody to something he doesn't see purpose for. There are |
| 44 |
people here who spent lots of time on the project and it might be left |
| 45 |
as is if they don't want any change. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Best regards, |
| 49 |
Igor mailto:lanthruster@×××××.com |
Archives