| 1 |
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:56:58 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I'm not trying to sabotage anything but total misuse of the feature. |
| 4 |
> Would have the same objections wrt whatever other "critical" news |
| 5 |
> that'd constitute completely inappropriate usage of GLEP42 features. |
| 6 |
> (And I'd expect that you'd show a bit more knowledge of the GLEP you |
| 7 |
> are a co-author of, frankly.) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Have you stopped to consider that, as author of the GLEP, I know |
| 10 |
exactly what it was intended to do and how it works? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's a change to a core configuration file requiring explicit user |
| 13 |
action from every user. It is not merely a notice about a new feature |
| 14 |
or a behaviour change that only affects a small proportion of users. |
| 15 |
The former gets a news item, the latter gets an elog. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The relevant paludis output has been pasted twice already, so let me |
| 18 |
> try one last time: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> <snip> |
| 21 |
> ... Use of token '*' is deprecated, use '*/*' instead |
| 22 |
> </snip> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> How much more explanation about this 'critical' change do the users |
| 25 |
> *need*? If they don't get the above, maybe paludis and Linux just |
| 26 |
> isn't for them and they should stick to Windows. Meanwhile there's no |
| 27 |
> need to establish a precedent of using critical news for PEBKAC |
| 28 |
> issues. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Experience has shown that without a news item, many users will ask for |
| 31 |
clarification or confirmation before making any changes, and with a |
| 32 |
news item users will be reassured that they're doing the right thing |
| 33 |
and that this is a deliberate change. Bear in mind that a large |
| 34 |
proportion of users didn't create those files by hand and haven't |
| 35 |
edited them themselves. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives