Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] the refactoring of emerge, continued... (was PATCH: refactor emerge spinner (#102073))

[Zac Medico]

warnera6 wrote:
>
> It was my understanding that large patches to portage were not to
> receive great consideration due to just that, regressions and bugs.  Why
> break something that is proven?  I will agree that emerge is a huge
> piece, I've torn it apart more than once.  However it currently does the
> job, so I don't see a point in rewriting it unless there is : a) an
> immediate benefit for users, and b) some sort of way to gaurantee a
> problem free update.
>
> I don't see a), they get prettier code to look at, but I wouldn't want
> people writing code against emerge.
> b) is hard to do, even if it's just function and variable re-organizing,
>  it's 2000 lines of code that has a lot of interaction and there are
> going to be bugs.
>

a) Probably not much benefit, unless it helps us to recognize and fix subtle bugs (not sure if there are any, in emerge at least).

b) Like I said, based on my analysis, I believe it can be done quickly and painlessly, without regressions.

> I just don't see the worth of it.  Why rewrite the front-end when the
> backend isn't done?
>

Again, no benefit unless it helps to fix bugs.  I want to emphasize that I have not suggested a "rewrite" per se, but only a quick reorganization.

> Not to mention you can upgrade the code here, and then upgrade it again
> to the new portage API in 2.1, since I would guess many calls are being
> refactored and rewritten to be object oriented.
>
> In the end nothing I say really matters, if you want to do the
> refactoring I certainly can't stop you, I just don't think it's worth it
> to rewrite at this time ;)

I certainly don't want to it if there's no benefit. ;-)

Zac
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list