| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:29:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Which of the issues I listed needs to be addressed for the scm |
| 5 |
> > proposal? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> At least the upstream server load. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
-scm doesn't attempt to use upstream to obtain any information. |
| 10 |
Upstream is only contacted when people install or reinstall packages, |
| 11 |
the same as for -9999 versions currently. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Other people seem to think it's feasible |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Jumping to that conclusion from such a vague proposal suggests that not |
| 16 |
much thought has gone into thinking that... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I think my proposal nicer and giving some value for the effort of |
| 19 |
> implementing it |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And I think it's not even far enough to be called a proposal, and we |
| 22 |
can't sensibly discuss any of it until it is. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> -scm adds a some work to do with undefined features at best. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-scm is trivial. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives