| 1 |
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:33:55 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 4 |
> > On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 |
| 5 |
> > Dan Meltzer <hydrogen@×××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the "requires an |
| 7 |
> >>> explicit read" problem. Making elog require an explicit read would |
| 8 |
> >>> be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've |
| 9 |
> >>> been over this already. |
| 10 |
> >> Not if one filters it properly. ELOG_CLASSES="warn error" sounds |
| 11 |
> >> like a sane default to me. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn |
| 14 |
> > notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by |
| 15 |
> > overusing it. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why would you acknowledge them? They are a different feature (plus, |
| 18 |
> seriously no mail gets automagically marked as read, if you use the |
| 19 |
> mail elog feature e.g. Maybe you should actually try to use the stuff |
| 20 |
> before recycling your 'our experience shows' and 'elog sucks' |
| 21 |
> scratched record once again.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Maybe you should reread the context I've quoted. Dan is proposing |
| 24 |
making elog require explicit acknowledgements. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Plus, why's this thread been hijacked again for the paludis upgrade |
| 27 |
> stuff that doesn't need any news at all and that's been committed in |
| 28 |
> breach of GLEP42 itself?! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Because some people won't stop looking for any available excuse to rant |
| 31 |
about anything that has or can be made to have 'paludis' in it, and |
| 32 |
they don't bother to read the rest of the discussion before they do so. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> - drop this "users like it" and "experience has shown" stuff. |
| 35 |
> Experience based on 4 news items is no experience at all; experience |
| 36 |
> based on one-package overlay is irrelevant wrt a repository with |
| 37 |
> thousands of ebuilds; and "users like it" may be nice for one package |
| 38 |
> overlay, and a genuine PITA for a tree with thousands of ebuilds at |
| 39 |
> the same time. Repeating it doesn't go anywhere, nor will it make any |
| 40 |
> of your point more valid. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
And yet it's infinitely more experience than anyone else has at this |
| 43 |
point. When there's a better collection of data available we'll use |
| 44 |
that instead. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives