On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:09:33 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > I'd like it spelt out please. > > stop playing games
No, I'm being entirely serious here. Everything I've heard about what PMS is supposed to achieve has been discussing distant future goals. There's never been any serious justification for immediacy. If there really is such a need, and it's not just brought about by certain people being dicks and having nothing better to do than moan about any project that has me or spb involved, then I'd like to hear it so that I can reprioritise things. > > So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects > > like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage > > GLEP 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing > > and things that users really care about? Is PMS really more > > important than any of these? > > i'd rate all of these as less important than an EAPI=0 spec except > for the GPG signing ... robbat i believe is looking into that Why? What value does PMS deliver to end users? How is whatever it delivers more valuable than features that users want and need? I really want a proper answer to this. If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
