Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>
> i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is no
> excuse.  blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead of
> pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt going to
> happen.  Thomas is absolutely right here.
>
>
Well, if eh is absolutely right, then I won't argue anymore.

But just as an notice, I didn't expect STABLE but at least DOCUMENTED 
system ?
Is that too much to ask ?

And even if I did a mistake of keywording openrc-0* instead of 
openrc-0.4-r3, do I really deserve such knife in the back ?

Having some reasonable safety margin is base of sanity. Your PSU is 
galvanicaly insulated, but law demands that housing of your PC be 
connected to earth potential in case  of insulation  failing. Had that 
been done by Gentoo community courts would be full of cases of 
"unreasonable dead jerks who should be grateful"...


> documentation doesnt write itself.  this isnt directed specifically at you,
> but clamoring "gimme gimme gimme" is more likely to get people to tell you to
> toss off than get what you want.
And who should write documentation for new code ? Unreasonable users 
that find it not working or perhaps authors ?
While I recognise the fact that Gentoo is not commercial distro, I want 
also some recognition for value of my time as a passive tester.

I am happy to give what I can, but I expect at least some basic 
foundations for that. Having documentation about public changes at least 
for me falls well within that category.

At least for me, even otherwise useful changes can have NEGATIVE value, 
if they gob heaps of my time totally unnecesarilly and total lack of 
documentation is on top of the list of best ways to piss on masses.