1 |
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:53:40PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> But here's the thing: when you sell something as "pragmatic", what |
3 |
> you're really saying is "it's wrong, I know it's wrong, and I'm going |
4 |
> to pretend that wrong is a good thing". Getting it wrong should be |
5 |
> something you do only after you're sure you can't afford get it right; |
6 |
> it shouldn't be something you're proud of. |
7 |
|
8 |
No, when I say pragmatic, what I'm actually saying is that people who |
9 |
can't focus on cost/gain, by large, haven't had real jobs (else they |
10 |
would've had that perfectionism/decreasing gains ground out of them |
11 |
sooner or later), and are spending their time whacking off chasing a |
12 |
mythical 'perfect' solution. |
13 |
|
14 |
Academic wankery, is the short version. You're good at technical, but |
15 |
you frequently do the academic wanking crap which leads to things |
16 |
dead-ending... plus wasted time because to you, 'pragmatic' is a dirty |
17 |
word (compromise? Heaven forbid!). |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
> > In my proposal, I am addressing labels; will fold in your claims, but |
21 |
> > those claims basically are shit- however, if you *did* find a |
22 |
> > conflicting nested example that wasn't contrived, preferablly |
23 |
> > multiple, I'd like those examples so I can include them into the |
24 |
> > proposal (give labels a fair hand, basically). |
25 |
> |
26 |
> You already have an example in your proposal, in the form of mplayer's |
27 |
> X? ( ) dependencies. |
28 |
|
29 |
I said nested conflicting labels. Meaning |
30 |
"build: x? ( dar run: blah )" |
31 |
|
32 |
which isn't the case for any of mplayer deps. |
33 |
|
34 |
Actual examples from the tree where a conflicting nested label is |
35 |
preferable. That isn't one of 'em, and you're unwillingness/inability |
36 |
to point out real world examples is just digging a deeper ditch for |
37 |
your argument. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
> But that's missing the point. Even if you pretend complicated |
41 |
> dependencies don't exist, labels are still by far the better proposal. |
42 |
> Your argument boils down to "it's more pragmatic to do a quick and dirty |
43 |
> implementation in Portage and thus force the technical debt onto every |
44 |
> single ebuild than it is to do it cleanly". |
45 |
|
46 |
My argument boils down to thus: |
47 |
|
48 |
We are not exherbo- we do not have the luxury of chucking out syntax |
49 |
and pulling NIH renaming of things for shits and giggles. Especially |
50 |
if the new syntax is directly translatable into a tweak of our |
51 |
existing syntax (a tweak that we should do anyways- recall I built |
52 |
this off of fixing USE_EXPAND). |
53 |
|
54 |
Your argument boils down to "it's not labels, ignore that it's |
55 |
aesthetic knob polishing (you can do the same w/ our existent |
56 |
syntax, thus the analogy of waxing it I truly mean), use labels |
57 |
because I'll berate you incessently till you accede". |
58 |
|
59 |
Beauty of open source, you want it, go do it. |
60 |
|
61 |
If in, what, 4 years? 3? You've not been able to get off your ass, |
62 |
write a proposal, hell, do a portage patch (you've *never* done |
63 |
portage patches of any worth, bluntly- I know this since in the past I |
64 |
used to fix shit you requested), you lose your voice in the matter. |
65 |
|
66 |
Considering your points boil down to aesthetic academic wanking at |
67 |
this point... put up, or shut up, really is that simple. |
68 |
|
69 |
As said, you come up w/ real world examples, I'll include them; else |
70 |
persist and I'll just fold the academic wankery description of labels |
71 |
into the glep if you'd truly like me to (or you piss me off enough I |
72 |
do so to be a dick). |
73 |
|
74 |
~harring |