| 1 |
On 11/13/2011 03:09 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/13/2011 07:49 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Please give me a good reason, why i should by default do more things (adding quiet-build=n to the |
| 5 |
>>> default emerge opts or searching for and opening the build.log) and what i or others do get from |
| 6 |
>>> that. And less lines on the screen is no added value for me, it removes value. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Why should we expose new users to legacy defaults that are useless to |
| 9 |
>> more than 99% users, when they would most likely prefer the |
| 10 |
>> --quiet-build display? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Why should we change the default behaviour for existing users? Those, who dont want to see it, |
| 13 |
> probably already use --jobs or quiet-build=y. For the rest, they either dont know about those |
| 14 |
> options (which does not get better, if some default behaviour changes) or they dont want those |
| 15 |
> options (in which case you force them to change their configuration/scripts/way to do things). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
When we change defaults, it affects everyone who hasn't yet overridden |
| 18 |
the setting in EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. That's just how it is. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Additionally, do you have any numbers about existing or new users and about the percentage, which |
| 21 |
> would like the build output to be quiet? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
All I have is the feedback from this mailing list, an my own intuition. |
| 24 |
My intuition says that --quiet-build is reasonable default that the |
| 25 |
silent majority of people will welcome. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Otherwise i see such lines as guess and could say the same |
| 28 |
> about the exact opposite view ;-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well, my interpretation of this thread says that the response is |
| 31 |
overwhelmingly positive, but I could be biased. ;) |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Zac |
Archives