| 1 |
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:14:47 -0600 |
| 2 |
RB <aoz.syn@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using |
| 4 |
> > EAPI 1 where useful is ludditism. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> While most of us appreciate your desire to move forward, ad-hominem |
| 7 |
> attacks (however subtle) really only serve to damage your point. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You're aware that that's not his real name, right? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> That said, this is the typical developer-wants-shiny-object, |
| 12 |
> engineering-wants-stability drama played out day after day in |
| 13 |
> corporations worldwide, and nothing ever gets solved until someone |
| 14 |
> puts up. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The stability issues, or lack there-of, in EAPI 1 are well understood |
| 17 |
by those of us who were behind deciding what went into EAPI 1. There is |
| 18 |
no issue with using EAPI 1 where appropriate for non-system packages. |
| 19 |
EAPI 1 is a small, well defined, well understood set of additions to |
| 20 |
EAPI 0. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Please - for the rest of the community's sake, get over |
| 23 |
> yourselves and your high ideals and spend some of this energy doing |
| 24 |
> something positive. Like pushing for ratification/completion of |
| 25 |
> EAPI=0 so none of you have room to complain. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Really, ratification of EAPI 0 doesn't affect any of this. It makes no |
| 28 |
more sense to say that we can't use EAPI 1 until EAPI 0 is ratified |
| 29 |
than it does to say that we can't use EAPI 0 until EAPI 0 is ratified. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives