| 1 |
On 10/15/07, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> That's what this commits review list feels like. |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some |
| 11 |
> > issue that relates directly to either correctness or maintainability. |
| 12 |
> > It doesn't matter if you can "rattle off capabilities to a millimeter" - |
| 13 |
> > if they're not documented somewhere (like, say, in the comments of the |
| 14 |
> > ebuild) then the maintainer that comes after you gets to go and break it |
| 15 |
> > all over again. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > jonathan. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. |
| 21 |
> Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite of |
| 24 |
> the right thing. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience |
| 27 |
> with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package |
| 28 |
> XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means |
| 29 |
> experience. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think this assumption is false. People maintain packages they don't |
| 32 |
know the intricate details of all the time. You are of course, free |
| 33 |
to ignore any and all suggestions offered; but you are not allowed to |
| 34 |
silence them. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-Alec |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives