| 1 |
On 01/08/14 20:23, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/02/2014 03:03 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Michael Palimaka: |
| 4 |
>>> but we need something [...] to avoid unnecessary rebuilds. |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>> People are already working on it. Join them if you find that it's an |
| 7 |
>> important issue instead of forcing council votes that rather discourage |
| 8 |
>> further efforts. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> Where are they working on it? We wouldn't have half this issue in the |
| 12 |
> first place if things were happening out in the open instead of behind |
| 13 |
> closed doors. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The workflow seems to have been... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1. Declare dynamic deps a /bug/ |
| 20 |
2. Tell people it will be disabled by force, without getting council |
| 21 |
involved, and be quite rude about it... |
| 22 |
3. Work on some replacement for the feature, development done mostly |
| 23 |
silently, |
| 24 |
in a way most people didn't even know about it |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
When it should have been... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
1. Work on some replacement for the feature, announce some design specifics |
| 29 |
of it in the ML, and explain it will be the replacement for the |
| 30 |
dynamic deps |
| 31 |
which will be disabled as redudant. Get people involved with good |
| 32 |
spirits. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
(The above message is written as approx. and is not to be taken |
| 35 |
literally or as an offense of anykind. Just saying |
| 36 |
there was no need to get people up in arms if the plan was to provide |
| 37 |
replacing feature all along.) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
- Samuli |
Archives