| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:45:44 -0700 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Then why don't you come up with a viable solution? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I already have - look back at my posts; very similar to Rich0's idea. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
No, I said viable. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> And I tire of the argument that if one doesn't have a perfect solution |
| 10 |
> now, we should adopt a half-brained one. The point of this is to spur |
| 11 |
> discussion to come up with a better solution. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We have a perfect solution. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > For the same reason they're willing to accept the package name and |
| 16 |
> > version in the filename. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The fact that you think this is the same thing as having the EAPI in |
| 19 |
> the filename is odd. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
PN and PV are metadata, same as EAPI. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > "If you paint the bikeshed, I shall throw my toys out of the pram |
| 24 |
> > and run off crying.". |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Why don't you propose a viable alternative instead of making |
| 27 |
> > threats? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Not a threat. And this will be my last post on the topic. I will not |
| 30 |
> take your bate and continue to argue, creating more noise on this |
| 31 |
> list - I've expressed how I feel. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
This isn't about how you feel. It's about what you rationally think, |
| 34 |
based upon a full understanding of the issues at hand. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives