Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:11:33
Message-Id: CAATnKFCU1Lt-GUwJao2v-=NoVzPBSpTM+h-=Jj4P0ia4Ds-wzg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA bikeshed: killing USE=dedicated in favor of uniform USE=client+server by Rich Freeman
1 On 21 August 2015 at 13:03, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 > I'd rather see groups like QA making proposals to improve cross-Gentoo
3 > consistency than see stagnation. It was an RFC, and people can post
4 > issues with it, or escalate to Council if they're concerned. If
5 > taking it to Council I'd suggest you might want to come up with a
6 > better argument than "who cares about consistency?"
7
8
9 Consistency is a fine goal, but "global" consistency can cost local
10 consistency in detrimental ways.
11
12 Hence why "DSLs" exist. For instance if we decided to make all sports
13 consistent, we'd have 3 games where people hit balls with bats, and
14 alternated between running with them and kicking them, and they'd all
15 be consistent, but the game itself would become confusing and
16 pointless.
17
18 I think its fine for some parts of trees to have local standards, so
19 that people using those parts of trees the most get the benefits out
20 of huffmanization.
21
22 No vote from me, I just don't see a point in changing something that
23 isn't broken for the sake of change, where the result may be a net
24 detriment and increase in complexity for consumers.
25
26 --
27 Kent
28
29 KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL