| 1 |
On Sep 6, 2012 10:18 AM, "Michael Orlitzky" <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/05/2012 05:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> and isn't a compromise at all. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required |
| 10 |
> > outcome of this. Given the choice between something productive, and |
| 11 |
> > something not productive, you don't choose the quasi-productive |
| 12 |
> > solution. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> From a developer's perspective, it's obviously better to be able to do |
| 15 |
> whatever you want. But for users it'd be nice to be able to request a |
| 16 |
> bump to EAPI5 and not get told to buzz off. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Some people are unhappy with the current situation or this thread |
| 19 |
> wouldn't exist. A good compromise should make everyone just a little bit |
| 20 |
> unhappy =) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Open source is built on scratching your own itch. As I said, you want |
| 23 |
eapi5 for user patching, either you're on the devs prioritization, or you |
| 24 |
do it yourself. You may not like that fact, but that *is* reality- filing |
| 25 |
nagging tickets isn't really going to help (more likely to piss people off |
| 26 |
in the same way zero-day tickets do). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Suggest you put effort towards eapi5 rather than this thread; the thread |
| 29 |
isn't productive any longer (arguing the point when people have said no in |
| 30 |
full force is pointless). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
~harring |
| 33 |
> |
Archives