| 1 |
On 3/10/2022 14:44, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> |
| 3 |
>>> I wouldn't block anyone from doing this, but it's not something I'm |
| 4 |
>>> personally interested in pursuing. I see very little value here. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> First, you're trying to justify replacing repoman on an entirely subjective |
| 7 |
>> opinion of "I think <foo> is superior" ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Well, if you've ever tried it you'll notice that <foo> for <foo> != repoman |
| 10 |
> actually finishes the checks within a finite amount of time. Kind of, the |
| 11 |
> most blatant argument for ditching repoman, actually. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If this is a concern for some, has anyone looked into whether repoman can be |
| 14 |
fixed to be more efficient? If so, how was the determination made that it |
| 15 |
cannot be fixed and instead, needs to be replaced? It's been around for 20+ |
| 16 |
years. Surely someone has gotten annoyed enough to look at any issues it |
| 17 |
has and attempt to fix them? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That said, I'm not terribly bothered by it. It is slow, don't get me wrong, |
| 20 |
but it's not slow enough that my workflow is significantly impacted. It |
| 21 |
catches most of the mistakes I've ever made before I make them so that I can |
| 22 |
fix them. For me, that's job well done. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Joshua Kinard |
| 26 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
| 27 |
kumba@g.o |
| 28 |
rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 |
| 29 |
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
| 32 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |
Archives