| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:09 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did opine |
| 2 |
thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Mike Edenfield wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi |
| 7 |
> > > did |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > opine thusly: |
| 10 |
> > >> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 11 |
> > >>> Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully |
| 12 |
> > >>> crafted work from time immemorial, without so much as a |
| 13 |
> > >>> by-your-leave. Anyone who wants to delete his own work is free to do |
| 14 |
> > >>> so, but the rest of us ought not to be required to suffer it. |
| 15 |
> > >> |
| 16 |
> > >> Doesn't matter to me, my longstanding rsync habit ensures there are |
| 17 |
> > >> always a couple of copies of my last known good configuration. |
| 18 |
> > >> Doesn't your carefully crafted work from time immemorial deserve |
| 19 |
> > >> rsync too? [cue rsync jingle] |
| 20 |
> > >> |
| 21 |
> > >> :) |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > > That's like saying that just because I have panel-beating skills and |
| 24 |
> > > lots of scrap metal in the back yard that it's perfectly OK for |
| 25 |
> > > marauding gangs of thugs to have at my car in the parking lots with |
| 26 |
> > > baseball bats. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Best analogy ever. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Hardly, though it does have a lot of drama which is what matters to |
| 31 |
> some. :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Actually it's quite relevant. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Just because I have and can use rsync to undo damage done by dubious features |
| 36 |
of portage is not a valid reason for portage to have dubious features. Which |
| 37 |
explains why portage by and large does not have dubious features. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
So it's a good analogy, differing only in degree of devastation. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives