Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting

[Brian Harring]

General suggestion ciaran, calm the hell down and just wait for the 
council.  Not helping your case for why you think I shouldn't see the 
stupid thing at all with rants like this (not saying I want you to 
succeed in blocking me from the doc mind you).


On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:14:11PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And you've already been told why I'd rather you didn't have it. In any
> case, you've been told to ask spb if you want it, and I suspect he has
> better things to do with his time than read these threads properly.

Already asked spb; he defered to you at the time.

This is getting retarded also. ;)

Upshot, he's now generating the ToC for me.  Not exactly content, 
but at least can *finally* gauge what work has been done.


> > Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead
> > set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or
> > it's related to the fact the paludis devs generally speaking would be
> > the first group of folks lining up to kick me in the balls.
>
> No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as
> possible.

Bit of BS.  will admit I think y'all are running it like it's a secret 
club (complete with deciding who is 'leet' enough, taunting those 
who aren't), but derailing it?

I want the thing finished, and I want it accurate.  No amount of 
accusations will change that.

Further, the sooner it's finished, the sooner I can go back to *not* 
interacting with y'all, which frankly is high on the priority list :)

Tend to think you're letting bad blood over a suspension blind you 
here also.


> You have absolutely nothing to contribute,

Friendly reminder; 'twas one of the portage monkeys for several years, 
specifically maintaining ebuild env.

Beyond that, laid the ground work for the env work you're just now 
starting to get into (glep33 already has the bits)- trees fairly clean 
due to the fact EBD (3+ years prior to your own investigation of env 
issues) already forced cleanup of most of the tree (this is what 
pauldv was talking about in the past thread also).

Will admit my portage UI knowledge is getting rusty, but still have to 
match the portage internals, and still track the changes they (and 
paludis) make.  Done a fair bit more, including sound wench^developer 
(thanks a lot for that crap job seemant), but public ml isn't really 
the place for doing wang measurements.


> as evidenced by
> every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and
> given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time
> you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your noise ever
> again.

Save the adhominem kindly; may not like the fact that at the time you 
had to put forth proposals I had a say on it, but thats the way it 
was.

Further, the glep42 changes *were* intended to make it saner for 
portage to support, not just your manager.


> You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process,

I gain zero by wrecking the process.  Time for another history 
lesson...

Friendly reminder, the only reason EAPI=0 is even being possible is 
because *I* added EAPI, against a fair bit of arguing at the time 
also.  Intention was for the format to evolve (add in bits stated in 
the other email that couldn't be done without breaking things).  None 
of the real features folks have asked for can be added without EAPI=0 
defined, thus *I* have an interest in it getting finished.

Yes, you may dislike the form EAPI took.  Point is, kindly don't 
claim I have anything to gain by blocking the process *I* started.

Prior to me pushing that through, folks were willy nilly making 
changes (look at the .5x history if in doubt).  I *do* want the damn 
thing finished- would be nice to actually get out the mythical EAPI=1 
sometime before I turn 30.

Really is that simple, long standing stuff I've worked on can't 
progress without EAPI=N being possible.


> and your
> past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty
> trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with
> rather than having a proper technical discussion.

spare the ad hominem.  As I said in the parent post, I may not like 
you, but I'll work with you (usually from afar via proxies if given 
the choice).  If in doubt, take a look at the misc portage 
features I've added for you in the past (glep31, repoman metadata.xml 
caching off the top of the head).

Additionally, spent a good chunk of time answering your questions 
prior to your suspension about portage behaviour.

Don't like your behaviour, and can get pissed off, but that 
doesn't justify the attack.  Besides, public ml is the wrong place for 
it.


> Frame it any way you want, but so far as I'm concerned there is nothing
> of value you can possibly provide that would make up for the headache
> of having to handle your own unique form of input.

Woot.
I'm special. :)


> But hey, it's up to spb, not me. Try emailing him if you want access. I
> couldn't give you svn access even if I wanted to.

Well, as you said, spb's decision, ultimately the councils decision if 
it supports the project.  Either way, the little tirade here wasn't 
needed (and doesn't help your arguement much).

If you would like to continue discussing the particulars of why and 
how you think I suck, private email is the route to go.

~harring