| 1 |
On 01/02/2012 07:04 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:49:50 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> And now finally we have Zac, a brave man who has taken on the |
| 5 |
>>> thankless task of sorting the mess out. Most of his deep changes over |
| 6 |
>>> the past two years or so are to make things consistent within the |
| 7 |
>>> overall grand plan. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Stuff breaks badly when you do that. But it has to be done. Today it's |
| 10 |
>>> your turn to be on the sharp end. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I'm fine with suffering a little for the greater good, but is the new |
| 13 |
>> behavior better in any tangible way? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> It is reasonable to assume that the answer to that question is "yes". Any |
| 16 |
> other answer raises the question "why did Zac spend so much effort |
| 17 |
> recoding portage just to piss off the odd user?". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Hah! Many people here are probably employed in IT, software development, |
| 20 |
or system administration where the job description can be summed up as |
| 21 |
"unfixing things that weren't broken." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
We all implicitly trust the devs with our systems, of course, but maybe |
| 24 |
it was announced to little protest and that was reason enough? |
Archives