On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 21:55 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Erm. Wow. So you get to play both sides of the argument?
Both sides of *what* argument? Once again, your vagueness has left me with no clue what exactly you're referring to. Perhaps a bit of care should be taken in your replies to ensure all the facts are laid out and sufficient information is present for someone other than yourself to know what you're talking about. > > Repoman doesn't even work in gentoo-x86/eclass, thanks for playing. > Thanks for not listening, moron. Ahh, yes. Allow me to show you other developers this. This is the point where the argument breaks down. The opposing side in the debate has no positive answer, so instead has turned to personal attack. You just have to love acts of desperation. > repoman is a technical solution for what used to be a "social" problem > (devs mangling keywords and not keywording all deps etc.) Funny. I always looked at repoman as a helpful QA tool that makes lives easier. I tend to put it in the same category with ekeyword and echangelog. Tools which make my life as a developer much easier, rather than more complex. > > > I think at this point we should change our strategy: > > > > > > At some point in time, we bribe the doc people to post a new policy and > > > commit stuff all across the tree. Then you'll have to use it. > > > > Excellent, except the same people that post developer policy are the > > same people that would be examining your actions and deciding whether or > > not you'll be sticking around once the complaints start rolling in from > > developers and users alike. There's also that fun thing about being > > able to revert a commit that you seem to forget, after all, the > > inability to revert a commit seems to be your prime reason for this > > proposal. > Erm. eh ... that's not the point It was my point. > But at the moment we have a standoff where nothing moves. > Once something has happened, there's a small chance of it not being > undone, which is a lot larger than nothing at all. Actually, at this point, I would say there is a very large chance of it being undone, seeing as how you've tipped your hand, if this was your intention, and I know that at least I will be on the lookout for these changes in the tree. Make no mistake, I will revert this crap up until it has been approved by the managers. > > > P.S. That strategy has been used by a few devs in the past and had on > > > average positive results ... > > > > Usually it was because their ideas made sense and worked, not because > > they were a vocal minority with a technically inferior solution to a > > non-existent problem. Perhaps it is time you rethink your position, but > > I don't see that happening any more than I see our moon suddenly raining > > cheese on Ethiopia. > *cough* MacOS *cough* Oh, you mean the rest of the developers having to go behind a few new developers that made a large number of mistakes and fixing tons of ebuilds which they had touched? If that is your intention, to cause the rest of us to have to clean up after you, then I wonder why you bother remaining a developer. > I remember the whining and yelling and clawing ... > > "omgomgomg!! you can't do that!!!" .... but then it just stuck. > and grew. and is now mostly accepted. Actually, I seem to remember quite a bit of work being reversed, and developers being taught why certain actions were bad, and everyone growing and learning from it, not some subversive tactics to try to put in place a technically inferior solution to a non-problem which has not only not been accepted, but has been rejected by several developers citing examples of why it won't work. The MacOS developers at the time made a mistake due to their inexperience with Gentoo. You would be directly performing premeditated actions to do damage. If that isn't enough to have a developer's status questioned, then I don't know what is. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
