| 1 |
Hi there, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Just want to chim in as someone who would like to contribute and help out with |
| 4 |
Python packages. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I was looking through the python.eclass file earlier on and brought up this |
| 7 |
"issue" on IRC: the eclass is over 3000 SLOC. This eclass looks like a massive |
| 8 |
maze to me and I wouldn't know where to begin, if I were to fix an ebuild |
| 9 |
calling on it. It'd make sense to halve the size and trim the complexity down |
| 10 |
so that newcomers / wanna-be contributors can make sense of the API. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
monsieurp |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Saturday 22 Nov 2014 21:02:14, Rafael Goncalves Martins wrote : |
| 15 |
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Alex Brandt <alunduil@g.o> wrote: |
| 16 |
> > On Saturday, November 22, 2014 23:06:29 Michal Górny wrote: |
| 17 |
> >> Hello, Python team and other nice people. |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> I'd like to discuss the topic of parallel runs again. While it |
| 20 |
> > sounded |
| 21 |
> >> like a good idea at first, I have my doubts now. I'll try to |
| 22 |
> > shortly |
| 23 |
> >> describe the implementation, then recollect the advantages |
| 24 |
> >> and disadvantages of it. |
| 25 |
> >> |
| 26 |
> >> What are your thoughts? |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Based on your excellent set of points (dropped for length) I'd |
| 29 |
> > vote for dropping the parallel phases and making things work as |
| 30 |
> > expected rather than faster. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> +1 |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> I agree with dropping parallel phases. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> []'s |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> -- |
| 40 |
> Rafael Goncalves Martins |
| 41 |
> Gentoo Linux developer |
| 42 |
> http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/ |
| 43 |
> |
Archives