Hi,
I realize that we are in the middle of a huge discussion on GLEP 42 news
items, but I think I have a need for such a news item at the moment, and
getting more items to discuss may help move the discussion forward. I'm
appending the news item below.
That said, unfortunately GLEP 42 is not
Hans de Graaff kirjoitti:
What I would like to happen is that the message is added to the tree
once, shown to users who have dev-ruby/radiant in testing immediately,
and only shown to other users of dev-ruby/radiant when they move radiant
to testing or radiant itself becomes stable for them.
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
Hans de Graaff kirjoitti:
What I would like to happen is that the message is added to the tree
once, shown to users who have dev-ruby/radiant in testing immediately,
and only shown to other users of dev-ruby/radiant when they move radiant
to testing or radiant itself
Hans de Graaff wrote:
Hi,
I realize that we are in the middle of a huge discussion on GLEP 42 news
items, but I think I have a need for such a news item at the moment, and
getting more items to discuss may help move the discussion forward. I'm
appending the news item below.
That said,
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:45:36AM +0200, Hans de Graaff wrote:
http://seancribbs.com/tech/2007/04/18/whats-new-in-radiant-0-6/
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to
maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
--
Maurice van der Pot
Gentoo
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 11:48 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Hans de Graaff kirjoitti:
What I would like to happen is that the message is added to the tree
once, shown to users who have dev-ruby/radiant in testing immediately,
and only shown to other users of dev-ruby/radiant when they move
Hans de Graaff kirjoitti:
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 11:48 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Hans de Graaff kirjoitti:
What I would like to happen is that the message is added to the tree
once, shown to users who have dev-ruby/radiant in testing immediately,
and only shown to other users of
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:48:33 am Petteri Räty wrote:
Hans de Graaff kirjoitti:
What I would like to happen is that the message is added to the tree
once, shown to users who have dev-ruby/radiant in testing immediately,
and only shown to other users of dev-ruby/radiant when they move radiant
On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:45:36 +0200
Hans de Graaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess this is what the Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: that Ciaran
mentioned would do, but I'm wondering if GLEP 42 makes any sense
without it.
Nope. Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: wouldn't trigger until the upgrade
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 16:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 08:45:36 +0200
Hans de Graaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess this is what the Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: that Ciaran
mentioned would do, but I'm wondering if GLEP 42 makes any sense
without it.
Nope.
On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:49:24 +0200
Hans de Graaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: wouldn't trigger until the
upgrade actually happened.
Since this header is not documented anywhere yet let me ask the
following questions about it:
Will the news item be shown
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
After. For before, use Display-If-Installed: on a lower version.
See below.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You want Display-If-Installed:, because users that
have earlier versions will be affected at some point in the future.
I'm afraid that this is not correct, because
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 16:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Will the news item be shown before or after the package gets merged?
After. For before, use Display-If-Installed: on a lower version.
Ok, so this is more like elog stuff. One benefit I can see with this
version is that it makes it
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus giving them lots of notice, which is one of the things the GLEP
was designed to do.
If either the news item is shown once, it is bad because the user
might forget about if until that package actually hits the stable
branch.
On Sun, 06 May 2007 18:27:09 +0200
Hans de Graaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that many users will have forgotten by the time the upgrade
is actually possible for them, especially when this period is longer
than a month. It feels a bit like crying wolf to me: here's a bunch
of changes
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, this field could be my previous understanding
of Display-If-Upgrading-From-To namely
Display-Before-Upgrading-From-To which would fit the requirements
defined by the GLEP:
Which is the same as a combination of
Am Sonntag 06 Mai 2007 18:42 schrieb Marius Mauch:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, this field could be my previous understanding
of Display-If-Upgrading-From-To namely
Display-Before-Upgrading-From-To which would fit the requirements
defined by the GLEP:
Which is the same as a
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:42:58 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, this field could be my previous understanding
of Display-If-Upgrading-From-To namely
Display-Before-Upgrading-From-To which would fit the
On Sun, 6 May 2007 19:24:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in the case of the combination, the user would see the item
directly, in the case of Display-If-Upgrading-From-To the user would
only see it if he really wants to upgrade, which is last minute.
No no no no no. When using
On Sun, 6 May 2007 17:27:39 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:20:31 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only solution I currently see is an additional field in the
header, a change in behaviour and therefore the GLEP itself.
In particular, this field
I think we can see different aspects here:
0) Being able to display items for packages which might become available to
the stable branch after unknown time. (available yet)
1) Being able to show items right before merging, the one last last
minute warning, that is Display-Before-Upgrade-From-To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 19:24:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in the case of the combination, the user would see the item
directly, in the case of Display-If-Upgrading-From-To the user would
only see it if he really wants
On Sun, 6 May 2007 19:16:11 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming it would trigger on _available_ updates (and not only when
the actual upgrade is about to be performed) the relevant notice would
be shown at --sync and --pretend time, no? Then the user has the
opportunity to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 19:24:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in the case of the combination, the user would see the item
directly, in the case of Display-If-Upgrading-From-To the user would
only see it if he really wants to upgrade, which is last minute.
No no no no
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:38:14 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how is that different than using e{info,warn,error}?
It stays visible until the user explicitly acknowledges reading it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 06 May 2007 1:58:57 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:38:14 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how is that different than using e{info,warn,error}?
It stays visible until the user explicitly acknowledges reading it.
which elog could easily be extended to do.
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:08:01 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 1:58:57 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:38:14 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how is that different than using e{info,warn,error}?
It stays visible until the user
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:11:14 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:08:01 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 1:58:57 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:38:14 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how is that different than
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:17:29 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which elog could easily be extended to do.
But which elog does not do by default, and for good reason.
and what good reason would that be?
That elog is designed for post-install messages that aren't necessarily
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:21:02 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:17:29 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which elog could easily be extended to do.
But which elog does not do by default, and for good reason.
and what good reason would that be?
That elog is
Am Sonntag 06 Mai 2007 20:21 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:17:29 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which elog could easily be extended to do.
But which elog does not do by default, and for good reason.
and what good reason would that be?
That elog is
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 17:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If either the news item is shown once, it is bad because the user
might forget about if until that package actually hits the stable
branch.
The 'eselect news' module that ships with Paludis solves that problem.
I'm not familiar
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 07:21:02PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:17:29 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which elog could easily be extended to do.
But which elog does not do by default, and for good reason.
and what good reason would that be?
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:39:13 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, its designed to save messages for users to read. It was
implemented because important information scrolled off the screen in
major updates. If a user chooses not to read warn level messages
from elog then they are
On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:41:24 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, if you where a bit more verbose you could save time.
If people read the rest of the thread and the GLEP we'd all save a lot
more, and if people also tried out a reference implementation then none
of these threads would need more
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:42:23 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:39:13 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, its designed to save messages for users to read. It was
implemented because important information scrolled off the screen in
major updates. If a user
On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:43:08 +0200
Hans de Graaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 17:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If either the news item is shown once, it is bad because the user
might forget about if until that package actually hits the stable
branch.
The
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:53:22 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the reasons GLEP 42 was necessary was because users *don't*
read things delivered by other methods.
And they are magically going to read the news?
Experience with a reference implementation strongly suggests that
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:02:38 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:53:22 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the reasons GLEP 42 was necessary was because users *don't*
read things delivered by other methods.
And they are magically going to read the news?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Paludis users do not consider that news item trivial.
The reason I, and many others I know, are EX-users of Paludis, is the
arrogance of the Paludis team in assuming they know what Paludis (and
Gentoo) users actually want.
Be lucky,
Neil
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:47:22 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:41:24 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, if you where a bit more verbose you could save time.
If people read the rest of the thread and the GLEP we'd all save a lot
more, and if people also tried out a
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:19:53 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:02:38 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:53:22 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the reasons GLEP 42 was necessary was because users
*don't* read things
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:26:06 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:47:22 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:41:24 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, if you where a bit more verbose you could save time.
If people read the rest of the thread
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:28:41 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:19:53 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:02:38 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:53:22 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the reasons GLEP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My intention would be to show these right after 'emerge --sync' or
'emerge --pretend', not when the package is about to be merged.
Then you want the non-existent pkg_pretend_post() feature, not GLEP 42.
glep 42:
Checks
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:31:32 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:26:06 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:47:22 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:41:24 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, if you where a bit more
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:37:05 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, if that happens (which it won't), we'll have more experience
and we can evaluate future news items based upon that. A more
realistic view for your typical user is less than a news item per
week.
And what are you
On Sun, 06 May 2007 21:43:23 +0200
Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My intention would be to show these right after 'emerge --sync' or
'emerge --pretend', not when the package is about to be merged.
Then you want the non-existent pkg_pretend_post() feature,
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:43:45 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I've read the other threads. You've not explained how this is a
critical update that requires a news item. You've said repeatedly in
response to related questions that your experience with news for one
package in one
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:53:47 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:43:45 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I've read the other threads. You've not explained how this is a
critical update that requires a news item. You've said repeatedly in
response to related
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the requires an
explicit read problem. Making elog require an explicit read would
be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've been
over this already.
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:06:18 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the requires an
explicit read problem. Making elog require an explicit read would
be far too annoying because
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn
notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by
overusing it.
Err, warn notices are supposed to be important warnings. If they are
not it
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:22:44 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn
notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by
overusing it.
Err, warn notices
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the requires an
explicit read problem. Making elog require an explicit read would
be far too annoying because most elog notices are noise. We've
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:33:55 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the requires an
explicit read problem. Making elog require an explicit
Am Sonntag 06 Mai 2007 22:38 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:33:55 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:38:16 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:33:55 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the
On Sun, 6 May 2007 22:50:40 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be infinitely more, yet it still isnt worth anything for the
reasons already explained which you, I guess, have accidently
overlooked again. I bet your users wont like reading zillions of -
for gods sake - very very trivial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:29:22 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:22:44 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you want users to have to explicitly
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 6 May 2007 22:50:40 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be infinitely more, yet it still isnt worth anything for the
reasons already explained which you, I guess, have accidently
overlooked again. I bet your users wont like reading zillions of -
for
61 matches
Mail list logo
