| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:51:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Without a list of future features, you think the best way to go must |
| 4 |
| be the least agile? As Zac said, all that matters to keep full |
| 5 |
| compatibility on the side of the readers is to add a level of |
| 6 |
| indirection. All your reasoning above falls apart in the face of that |
| 7 |
| simple *logical* request. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Every problem can be solved by adding another layer of indirection, |
| 10 |
except for the problem of having too many layers of indirection. This |
| 11 |
layer you are proposing is not going to do anything useful. It's merely |
| 12 |
adding indirection for the sake of it. There's no more need for this |
| 13 |
than there is need for a two thousand line XML DTD which allows us to |
| 14 |
specify the author's date of birth using an ancient Sumerian calendar. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Come up with a full specification of how Portage will handle multiple |
| 17 |
repositories, and get that specification agreed upon by the people who |
| 18 |
will end up having to use it. *Then* come back and ask me to add in |
| 19 |
more complexity. I'm not going to over-complicate things to deal with |
| 20 |
random hypothetical half-baked speculation. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 24 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 25 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives