| 1 |
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:09:33 -0500 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I'd like it spelt out please. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> stop playing games |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
No, I'm being entirely serious here. Everything I've heard about what |
| 9 |
PMS is supposed to achieve has been discussing distant future goals. |
| 10 |
There's never been any serious justification for immediacy. If there |
| 11 |
really is such a need, and it's not just brought about by certain |
| 12 |
people being dicks and having nothing better to do than moan about any |
| 13 |
project that has me or spb involved, then I'd like to hear it so that I |
| 14 |
can reprioritise things. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects |
| 17 |
> > like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage |
| 18 |
> > GLEP 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing |
| 19 |
> > and things that users really care about? Is PMS really more |
| 20 |
> > important than any of these? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> i'd rate all of these as less important than an EAPI=0 spec except |
| 23 |
> for the GPG signing ... robbat i believe is looking into that |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Why? What value does PMS deliver to end users? How is whatever it |
| 26 |
delivers more valuable than features that users want and need? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I really want a proper answer to this. If there's some value to be |
| 29 |
found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I |
| 30 |
want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less |
| 31 |
on other things. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 35 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 36 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 37 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives