| 1 |
Disclaimer: I do not intend to stir any fuzz with this. Please be |
| 2 |
overbearing when reading it. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:54:49 +0200 |
| 5 |
Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> I understand and agree that verwilst (or anyone else) shouldn't be using |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> eclasses or his day-today work and all his ebuilds. I do think he should |
| 10 |
help |
| 11 |
> me test them, because two testers are always much better than one. I |
| 12 |
> introduced Verwilst to eclasses wih this purpose, perhaps I was wrong to |
| 13 |
do |
| 14 |
> so on his first day as a Gentoo developer. Since you hink I should do |
| 15 |
this |
| 16 |
> strictly alone, I will. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If what drobbins really mean is that Dan should be doing this job alone |
| 19 |
without any help from other developers, then I strongly disagree. The |
| 20 |
major point about any community project like this is teamwork. That is |
| 21 |
what attracts developers. We are not attracted to a TODO-list where we can |
| 22 |
pick our tasks and complete them in isolation. That is not what Gentoo |
| 23 |
should be about. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If on the other hand, drobbins' argument is against Dan seemingly |
| 27 |
recruiting any and all, or newcomers to Gentoo, then I understand it a bit |
| 28 |
more. While I still think Dan should be entitled to recruit the help of |
| 29 |
any of the other Gentoo developers, Dan should perhaps have handled things |
| 30 |
a bit differently and required that Verwilst sent the eclass-based ebuilds |
| 31 |
directly to himself instead checking it into CVS. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
On a more practical note, I really think major changes like this chould be |
| 35 |
done on CVS branches, so that we can afford doing really heavy changes |
| 36 |
without fear of troubling our users. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Kind regards, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Karl T |
Archives