| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:24:48AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:14:15 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | What remaining straw men are there for ignoring the portage |
| 5 |
> | developers requests? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Asking you to specify how multiple repositories will work before I try |
| 8 |
> to extend the GLEP to support multiple repositories is hardly a straw |
| 9 |
> man argument. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Do you need to know how every bit of a car works to drive it? No. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We're simply asking you to tag in a repo_id to your calls to portage. |
| 14 |
It's bloody simple, just need to know what you explicitly need from a |
| 15 |
news client standpoint. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Stop being a stubborn mule, and realize that you're trying to shove a |
| 18 |
feature into portage that *we* have to maintain, including your built |
| 19 |
in design flaw for N repos. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you can't accept our criticism and suggestions for your glep, tough |
| 22 |
cookies, we're the ones stuck maintaining it, and the users are the |
| 23 |
one stuck when we expand portage functionality (thus breaking your |
| 24 |
implementation). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> *shrug* But if you prefer, I'll change the GLEP to |
| 28 |
> support multiple repositories the way I'd like to see them done rather |
| 29 |
> than the way you'd like. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ciaranm, cut the word games and stupid threats. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If you can't work with others, and actually understand that they may |
| 34 |
not agree with your views (let alone be willing to have you dump a |
| 35 |
mess on them), I suggest you leave the distro and go work on your |
| 36 |
social skills. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Propose the glep however you want. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
As long as the glep is around, I'm going to do the same you do- point |
| 41 |
out the flaws in it. If you're unwilling to even nail down what is |
| 42 |
needed so that all parties are happy, that's fine- I would expect the |
| 43 |
council to realize the glep (heavily affecting the portage group, |
| 44 |
since server and client side mods fall on our head) needs to be worked |
| 45 |
out further and thus reject it. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Or, you stop debating the fact portage group might have a say in this, |
| 48 |
and start discussing what needs to be done so progress is made. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Balls in your court, you know we view it as unacceptable right now, if |
| 51 |
you're not willing to work with us there isn't much that can be done. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
~harring |
Archives