1 |
On 04/30/13 01:12, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
3 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>> What ultimately got approved by the Council, and what implementers |
5 |
>> should be following, is the wording which ended up in PMS. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
> I can't speak for everywhere, but even in the highly regulated |
8 |
> environment I work in, an error in a specification is a good reason to |
9 |
> fix the specification, not to change the implementation. |
10 |
Just out of curiosity what happen in a highly regulated environment if |
11 |
an individual systematically try to find loopholes and use them against |
12 |
the environment? In production? |
13 |
Or to say it another way to boycott things staying in the rules, lawyers |
14 |
enjoy this, but programmers? |
15 |
</troll> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Whether this is retroactive or forward-going should be based on the |
18 |
> practical impact of each, not on whether the council approved |
19 |
> something without appreciating every possible ramification of the |
20 |
> wording as-written. Specs are a communication tool - not writ from |
21 |
> heaven. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Arguing over whether we should go ahead and break a whole bunch of |
24 |
> packages in the interim just to comply with the spec until it is fixed |
25 |
> is basically reducing human intelligence to algorithmic behavior. |
26 |
> There is a reason that we program the machines, and not the other way |
27 |
> around (yet). |
28 |
> |
29 |
> If it really is better for our users to follow the spec as-is for now, |
30 |
> I'm sure everybody is all ears, but I haven't seen any examples |
31 |
> offered. The council is of course welcome to chime in if they'd |
32 |
> rather the portage maintainers do so. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> This whole thing seems best chalked up to well-intending people making |
35 |
> omissions (maybe), and the virtue of competent developers who don't |
36 |
> just blindly follow the spec when it doesn't make sense. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Sure, fix the spec, but it makes more sense to make this retroactive |
39 |
> unless somebody can really point to something that this breaks. If |
40 |
> the damage from doing so exceeded the damage from not doing so you |
41 |
> probably wouldn't even need the council to get everybody to go along |
42 |
> with you. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Rich |
45 |
> |