| 1 |
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:27:04 +0300 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The workflow seems to have been... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. Declare dynamic deps a /bug/ |
| 7 |
> 2. Tell people it will be disabled by force, without getting council |
| 8 |
> involved, and be quite rude about it... |
| 9 |
> 3. Work on some replacement for the feature, development done mostly |
| 10 |
> silently, |
| 11 |
> in a way most people didn't even know about it |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> When it should have been... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 1. Work on some replacement for the feature, announce some design |
| 16 |
> specifics of it in the ML, and explain it will be the replacement for |
| 17 |
> the dynamic deps |
| 18 |
> which will be disabled as redudant. Get people involved with good |
| 19 |
> spirits. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> (The above message is written as approx. and is not to be taken |
| 22 |
> literally or as an offense of anykind. Just saying |
| 23 |
> there was no need to get people up in arms if the plan was to provide |
| 24 |
> replacing feature all along.) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
These workflows declare that we need a replacement, but that is not |
| 27 |
necessarily the plan; thus this workflow is a misrepresentation and |
| 28 |
just one possible scenario. Not sure about "up in arms" but most of the |
| 29 |
scenario has so far been discussion giving rise to ideas and motions. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
With kind regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 38 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 39 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives