1 |
On Monday 08 June 2009 20:35:22 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:56 +0100 |
3 |
|
4 |
> > And how much developer time would be wasted to do so, and indeed has |
5 |
> > already been wasted on this? |
6 |
> Thanks to emails like yours, lots. |
7 |
5-2009, 800 emails |
8 |
11.75% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com |
9 |
|
10 |
4-2009, 287 emails |
11 |
11.50% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com |
12 |
|
13 |
3-2009, 602 emails |
14 |
9.47% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com |
15 |
|
16 |
Congratulations. You managed to consistently hit the top spot for three months |
17 |
in a row, outrunning the second by a wide margin. At this rate of increase |
18 |
you'll write all emails on this mailing list somewhere near 2012 ... |
19 |
|
20 |
Source: http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml |
21 |
|
22 |
> > (If you don't think it is a problem, please feel free to say |
23 |
> > so /without/ resorting to insult over reason. If you think the |
24 |
> > proposal had merit: how come we've only now got agreement that |
25 |
> > easily-extractable EAPI works?) |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a |
28 |
> considerable performance impact. |
29 |
|
30 |
I thought the performance impact was still up for debate (and if I'm not |
31 |
mistaken the parsing approach would still be _much_ faster than the current |
32 |
sourcing approach, negating your argument quite nicely ...) |
33 |
> |
34 |
> GLEP 55's getting nowhere because a small group of religious fanatics |
35 |
> are doing anything they can to derail it because it came from "the |
36 |
> wrong people". |
37 |
No, you are ignoring what people say again. It's a bad idea, has nothing to do |
38 |
with your abrasive demeanor, your attempts to deflect the discussion etc. |
39 |
Amazingly people don't care that much about you. |
40 |
|
41 |
> If you want to know the kind of arguments that are being |
42 |
> thrown against GLEP 55 now, just have a look at: |
43 |
> |
44 |
> 22:54 < ciaranm> it's been established by precedent that gleps propose |
45 |
> an enhancement, and that competing enhancements get their own gleps |
46 |
> 22:55 < bonsaikitten> well, we claim precedent on this one |
47 |
> 22:55 < bonsaikitten> so there :) |
48 |
> 22:55 < ciaranm> point to your precedent please |
49 |
> 22:55 < bonsaikitten> it is the precedent |
50 |
> 22:56 < ciaranm> bonsaikitten: uh... i don't think you know what that |
51 |
> means.. |
52 |
> 22:56 < bonsaikitten> ciaranm: you refuse to accept time travel |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Yup, the argument of the week against GLEP 55 is that we refuse to |
55 |
> accept time travel. |
56 |
|
57 |
Oh, you took that little joke seriously. I thought you were joking there, |
58 |
precedent is such a funny and obsolete legal concept. Plus you had been |
59 |
baiting NeddySeagoon for almost an hour at that point, driving the discussion |
60 |
in circles without contributing any constructive comments or fact-based chains |
61 |
of reasoning. |
62 |
And you didn't quote the much better joke: |
63 |
|
64 |
<bonsaikitten> time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like banana |
65 |
|
66 |
That you now take a joke as a serious argument to show that "the others" are |
67 |
wrong is quite hilarious. I do wonder though why you feel the need to diffuse |
68 |
a technical discussion with humoristic things like this ... |
69 |
|
70 |
Still leaves open why you religiously deny any input from me, even if it could |
71 |
solve the problem, and why you try to remove the discussion of alternatives |
72 |
from GLEP55 when NeddySeagoon spent lots of time refining it after multiple |
73 |
people stated the simple problem that it is missing the discussion of |
74 |
alternatives and is not fit for discussion. So maybe you should just let go of |
75 |
this one and let people with experience in documentation, standardization and |
76 |
other similar things fight out this one? Might make it easier to get |
77 |
somewhere. |