| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 2009.06.08 19:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
[snip] |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a |
| 8 |
> considerable performance impact. |
| 9 |
That needs to be quantified. e.g. 20ms to 200ms is a factor of 10x but |
| 10 |
it would not be considered 'considerable'. |
| 11 |
ms == 0.001 seconds |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> GLEP 55's getting nowhere because a small group of religious fanatics |
| 15 |
> are doing anything they can to derail it because it came from "the |
| 16 |
> wrong people". |
| 17 |
[snip] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't accept that. as I said in -council last night. A good technical |
| 20 |
paper presents an impartial, convincing technial argument. Glep 55 |
| 21 |
version 1.5 fails, as evidenced by the number of people who are not |
| 22 |
convinced that the problem it addresses exists, never mind the proposed |
| 23 |
solution. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There are several issues. Some with glep55 and some with the glep |
| 26 |
process. Glep 55 (any version) does not cover all the areas in |
| 27 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html#what-belongs-in-a- |
| 28 |
successful-glep and it needs to. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Glep 55 is a particularly complex glep. its not really suited to the |
| 31 |
current glep process which is written as if you agree everying during |
| 32 |
the process of writing the glep and its a done deal when it gets |
| 33 |
to council. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Glep 55 would benefit from being subject to the full rigours of the |
| 36 |
life cycle process, which has already started to happen. Council have |
| 37 |
agreed the problem is worth addressing. Thats the first step in the |
| 38 |
process. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
We have several options to solve the acknowledged problem. Thats the |
| 41 |
next life cycle process step. They need to be presented first for peer |
| 42 |
review, then to council with some metrics on the bottlenecks of each. |
| 43 |
That does not mean you need fully working solutions. With that |
| 44 |
information, one solution will be selected for implementaion. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Breaking the problem into small pieces and addressing each piece is the |
| 47 |
way complex problems are solved outside of Gentoo. At the top level its |
| 48 |
called Systems Engineering. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I'm quite happy to do the editorial work but I need the facts to work |
| 51 |
with and after two years we still only have subjective assessments of |
| 52 |
the alternatives. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Glep55 will be rejected no matter who presents it and where the ideas |
| 55 |
come from if its presented on one piece, its just too much to take in |
| 56 |
in one go. The approvers need to poke at the glep as it develops, not |
| 57 |
be presented with a done deal. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
- -- |
| 65 |
Regards, |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Roy Bamford |
| 68 |
(NeddySeagoon) a member of |
| 69 |
gentoo-ops |
| 70 |
forum-mods |
| 71 |
treecleaners |
| 72 |
trustees |
| 73 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 74 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkotcqcACgkQTE4/y7nJvatl/QCg3TwEohuKnT1xG8fgTybAs9DU |
| 77 |
vq0AoLyui1F3OQ5xChZAXCLQK12GefQA |
| 78 |
=PP28 |
| 79 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives