| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 11:50 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
> Whoever said we were voting? I was just showing my support for |
| 3 |
> alphabetical keyword ordering. Remember, alphabetical keywording is |
| 4 |
> *already* implemented in ekeyword, and we are discussing whether or not |
| 5 |
> to revert it. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
As the threadstarter indicated, this was done without discussing it and |
| 8 |
in the knowledge that there was no agreement on this issue. As said |
| 9 |
before, the fact that something gets done some way, doesn't mean it's |
| 10 |
right to do it that way. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> foser-- |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
In the response to that particular expression -especially by the 'guys' |
| 15 |
implied- you can see at least you try to defend your position now, |
| 16 |
that's more discussion like. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If everyone starts using ekeyword now with the alphabetical ordering |
| 19 |
> built in, everything will be consistent, and there shouldn't be a problem. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
See earlier replies : unneeded arbitrarily introduced inconsistency. I |
| 22 |
don't know why people are defending that move, even vapier indicates |
| 23 |
that there really is no reason to do it alphabetically, except maybe |
| 24 |
that he now knows to look in the keywords string, which is of course a |
| 25 |
bit far fetched with all arch keywords not being set for all different |
| 26 |
packs (so he still has to look at different points in different packs) |
| 27 |
and was not brought up as a defence of his particular move at the time |
| 28 |
he started doing this. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> I guess by "creating more traffic" you mean the one time when updating |
| 31 |
> the ebuilds with the new ordering during rsync for each user. Even if |
| 32 |
> this is significant over the whole tree, once everything is updated with |
| 33 |
> keyword ordering and everyone has done an emerge sync, there won't be |
| 34 |
> any more trouble, and we can just stay happy with the consistent |
| 35 |
> alphabetical ordering enforced by ekeyword. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Oh no doubt, I'm concerned about the inconsistency mostly. The |
| 38 |
maintainers arch is a concept that I do not necessarily associate with |
| 39 |
the keywords ordering anymore (although it may have been a reasonable |
| 40 |
indicator in the past), it actually really makes this discussion fuzzier |
| 41 |
than it has to be. My point is more about how this got 'introduced' as a |
| 42 |
mindset and that such unguided behaviour gets reinforced by this |
| 43 |
discussion, now up to IUSE ordering changes and next we'll tackle |
| 44 |
inheritance order. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
- foser |
Archives