1 |
2010/1/18 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>: |
2 |
> Propose something, or shut up frankly. |
3 |
|
4 |
I propose we don't do anything until someone comes up with a decent |
5 |
cache proposal. |
6 |
|
7 |
> If all you're going to contribute is "it's half baked" claims, you're |
8 |
> wasting folks time. You've had a couple of months of time to |
9 |
> counterpropose something- back it up with a proposal or be silent |
10 |
> please. |
11 |
|
12 |
Doing nothing is better than doing something useless. |
13 |
|
14 |
> As is, quite a few folk see how experimental vdb2/vdb1 synchronization |
15 |
> can be done w/ this timestamp- your claims thus far that it won't work |
16 |
> seem to boil down to "but not everyone will update the timestamp". |
17 |
|
18 |
Er, no. It comes down to VDB2 implementing things that VDB1 doesn't |
19 |
support, such as having multiple installed slots of the same |
20 |
cat/pkg-ver, thus making it impossible to have both VDB1 and VDB2 at |
21 |
the same time. |
22 |
|
23 |
I have never argued against this proposal because "not everyone will |
24 |
update the timestamp". That's an argument you've made up and |
25 |
attributed to me. |
26 |
|
27 |
> Which gets right back to why I'm elevating this to the council to |
28 |
> *force* PMS to include this, thus force the holdout (paludis) to |
29 |
> update the timestamp thus invalidating your cyclical claim. |
30 |
|
31 |
PMS doesn't mention VDB at all. You're barking up the wrong tree. If |
32 |
you want me to include it in Paludis, all you have to do is come up |
33 |
with a proposal that does everything we need, rather than a proposal |
34 |
that can't legally be used for anything at all. |
35 |
|
36 |
> What I won't do is sit around and listen to you whinge about the sky |
37 |
> falling or that I/others are being idiots via not going |
38 |
> the route *you* want and standardizing caches across all the managers- |
39 |
> as I said, you want that functionality *you* propose it. |
40 |
|
41 |
I propose that rather than implementing a half-baked cache that isn't |
42 |
usable for anything, we do nothing until someone does come up with a |
43 |
full, unified cache proposal, where the validity of caches after |
44 |
operations is well defined. |
45 |
|
46 |
> It's not how things should be done, but it's about the only way to get |
47 |
> something done when you dig in and go cyclical. |
48 |
|
49 |
Cyclical on what? Explain where there is a cycle anywhere. You keep |
50 |
claiming I "go cyclical", but never point out any actual cycles. It's |
51 |
what you fall back on when you don't have an argument. |
52 |
|
53 |
> Wish it weren't that way, but I've more interest in progress then playing games w/ |
54 |
> folk looking to be poisonous. |
55 |
|
56 |
And again, the whole "poisonous" thing. It's the last resort of those |
57 |
who are themselves the poison. How is wanting to do nothing until |
58 |
something can be done properly, rather than doing something that |
59 |
doesn't solve anything, poisonous? |
60 |
|
61 |
> Seriously, if you can't even be bothered to spell out your claims in |
62 |
> full or layout a counter proposal, instead spending your time |
63 |
> screaming "nyah nyah it won't work!" as you did for prefix, I'm not |
64 |
> having it. |
65 |
|
66 |
Uh, I already did, several times, and you ignored me, snipped them out |
67 |
and said I was "going cyclical". |
68 |
|
69 |
I'll also point out that I raised a long list of things that were |
70 |
wrong with Prefix way back when it all started, and over the past few |
71 |
months everyone has finally realised that that list was full of |
72 |
legitimate concerns that are just now being addressed. Is it going to |
73 |
take you five years to see how I'm right here too? And how much more |
74 |
damage are you going to do to Gentoo before you admit that, as with |
75 |
Prefix, I've thought this through properly and you're just rushing |
76 |
along with the first thing that popped into your head? |
77 |
|
78 |
So, for you to ignore yet again: |
79 |
|
80 |
* The proposal does not define exactly what the validity of a cache |
81 |
is. You are sort of implicitly assuming that the validity of a cache |
82 |
is a function exclusively of "the VDB not being modified", for some |
83 |
undefined value of "not being modified", but nowhere are you stating |
84 |
concretely what the rules are. |
85 |
|
86 |
* You are addressing *only* VDB validity, rather than doing validity |
87 |
of all repositories at the same time. |
88 |
|
89 |
* There is no granularity to the proposal. There is simply an |
90 |
ill-defined "modified" rule, with no way for a package manager to know |
91 |
what was modified or by whom. |
92 |
|
93 |
* You aren't doing anything to fix the zillions of different caches |
94 |
that package managers have to use. |
95 |
|
96 |
> There are better uses of folks time frankly, and users deserve |
97 |
> functionality over daft pissing matches. |
98 |
|
99 |
Then give them a functional, shared cache, not a cache that can't |
100 |
legally be used for anything. |
101 |
|
102 |
-- |
103 |
Ciaran McCreesh |