| 1 |
Hi Michał, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 2019/08/02 19:06, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 12:24 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On 8/2/19 11:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Given that overlays won't do proper assignment, the numbers they choose |
| 7 |
>>> may collide with numbers used in ::gentoo. Forcing explicit assignment |
| 8 |
>>> from dynamic range is cleaner in that regard. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> I think it would be cleanest to leave the hacks in the overlay, and set |
| 11 |
>> the desired ID to either 999 or a random number like floppym suggested. |
| 12 |
>> The meaning of RANDOM is even more clear than "-1", and doesn't require |
| 13 |
>> us to add both the code that's dead-on-arrival and the CI check to |
| 14 |
>> ensure that it stays that way. But you're the one who's maintaining it |
| 15 |
>> now so I won't argue. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> I suppose setting it to 999 would also serve the purpose. Jaco, do you |
| 18 |
> agree? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
No objections. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
999 I think is probably as good a reserved "don't care" number as any, |
| 23 |
since really the first dynamic allocation will already use that. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Kind Regards, |
| 26 |
Jaco |
Archives