| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:07:29 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're |
| 5 |
> > already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs |
| 6 |
> > because people can't keep track of when features came along. Two |
| 7 |
> > levels just means no-one will remember any of it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I disagree with your assertion that people are struggling - I think |
| 10 |
> things are very nicely documented in PMS and the devmanual, which are |
| 11 |
> where all EAPI changes should be documented in the future, regardless |
| 12 |
> if you specify the EAPI in the file, the extension, or both. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that |
| 15 |
they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Two levels really just means that any fancy tables will have to have |
| 18 |
> one extra row (or perhaps a series of fancy tables) and any summaries |
| 19 |
> will have to have an extra section added whenever a new filename |
| 20 |
> extension becomes necessary. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It'll mean people will carry on having to use the tables, and won't |
| 23 |
start remembering things as time goes on. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> If I understand the '.eapi3.eb' to which you make passing reference, |
| 26 |
> this is just a fancy hand-wavy way to say "Look, the true .eb |
| 27 |
> extension won't ever change, just the .eapi3 part which isn't |
| 28 |
> technically the extension..." which isn't a compromise at all - It's |
| 29 |
> an attempt to (cleverly?) obfuscate where in the filename the EAPI is |
| 30 |
> stored. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yup. And yet there're people who are perfectly happy with .eapi3.eb who |
| 33 |
hate GLEP 55. That should tell you all you need to know about what's |
| 34 |
going on here... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives