On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 18:32 -0800, David Sparks wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: <snip> > > Would it have been better if it would have said: > > > > QA Notice: Please update to linux-info.eclass > > Not really. I don't think that QA Notices belong as expected output in > "release" versions of anything. They're great for betas though.
We don't have releases, we have a constantly moving fluid tree. It has it's good points and it's bad points. You've obviously just spotted one of the downsides. > > > > Nobody is doing any finger pointing. In fact, it is probably a > > developer, or a group of developers, pointing out to other developers > > that may or may not know that they should be using the newer interface. > > Perhaps by doing this, they were hoping to get bug reports generated on > > the packages, rather than having to scour the tree to find them all and > > file individual bugs. In any case, it wasn't any developer trying to > > single out another. The sky is not falling. The world is not ending. > > ?? Nobody said the sky is falling or the world ending. Calm down! Your first email did have a certain tone to it that I personally took as slightly offensive. Fortunately my wife talked me out of sending the nasty email that I was going to send. > > It is a crappy message, with basic grammatical errors. It doesn't > belong in a release version, and if it is indeed pointing out a problem, > then said problem should've been dealt with before releasing it to the > masses. As a Gentoo dev, we are constantly at odds with fixing things ourselves "before releasing it to the masses", and not stepping on other developers toes. Sometimes users have to see the side effects of that struggle. It's not going to change. There's always going to be something that users have to deal with themselves. Whether it be pay for a distro that doesn't have it's own set of bugs, or have a free distro that you can be involved in that from time to time takes a little care and feeding. IF you don't like these kinds of messages, I'd really have to suggest you either A) go somewhere else or B) help us out. I prefer B. There is a GLEP for a "stable" portage tree that would be mostly static with only security and bug fixes. Part of that could be a modified portage that doesn't spit out stuff like that. I'm sure the people that are involved in said GLEP would love to hear your ideas on the subject. --Iggy > > Cheers, > > ds -- [email protected] mailing list
