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 "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. > > >> > > >> Not if one filters it properly. ELOG_CLASSES="warn error" sounds > > >> like a sane default to me. > > > > > > 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. > > > > Why would you acknowledge them? They are a different feature (plus, > > seriously no mail gets automagically marked as read, if you use the > > mail elog feature e.g. Maybe you should actually try to use the stuff > > before recycling your 'our experience shows' and 'elog sucks' > > scratched record once again.) > > Maybe you should reread the context I've quoted. Dan is proposing > making elog require explicit acknowledgements.
Thats news to me. I was proposing using elog where it was logical, you were the one who appended the "explicitly aknowledged" to it. > > > Plus, why's this thread been hijacked again for the paludis upgrade > > stuff that doesn't need any news at all and that's been committed in > > breach of GLEP42 itself?! > > Because some people won't stop looking for any available excuse to rant > about anything that has or can be made to have 'paludis' in it, and > they don't bother to read the rest of the discussion before they do so. > > > - drop this "users like it" and "experience has shown" stuff. > > Experience based on 4 news items is no experience at all; experience > > based on one-package overlay is irrelevant wrt a repository with > > thousands of ebuilds; and "users like it" may be nice for one package > > overlay, and a genuine PITA for a tree with thousands of ebuilds at > > the same time. Repeating it doesn't go anywhere, nor will it make any > > of your point more valid. > > And yet it's infinitely more experience than anyone else has at this > point. When there's a better collection of data available we'll use > that instead. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
