On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On 08/11/10 05:35 PM, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > I didn't ever thought I would need to put up such fight to get the message > > through. But that's sadly it. When talking to the walls, you only hear > > your own echo. > > I hope you realize now you did not go entirely unheard. See my previous > post regarding doing away with checking kernel version entirely, as it > seems to be a bad idea.
Seen that post. > FWIW, I did not read your objections based on performance concerns at > the time that I called for a close to discussion, and maybe that was > premature, Right. > but I felt we were spending too much time quibbling over issues that did > not directly relate to making eeepc-acpi-scripts release ready. Of course, making things work is utterly important. Still... > I agree that making our code as efficient as possible should be a > subgoal, Priorities? Subgoal, goal, not a goal, ignorance? > but we first need to make sure that we actually release the code. Sure. But putting away performance aspects with excuses like this: On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Ben Armstrong wrote: > > I agree the alternative above is atrocious won't take you very far. It's ignorant, the way I see it :( > Since every change we make now is in the middle of the freeze, we're > operating on borrowed time. Are we? I did point out inefficiencies with the shell script code in more than one post, didn't I? You chose to ignore that :( And now it's too late? Well, allow me to express my disappointment. Cheers, -- Cristian _______________________________________________ Debian-eeepc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-eeepc-devel
