Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jonathan Adamczewski wrote: > > Doug Goldstein wrote: > >> That's what this commits review list feels like. > > Nearly every suggestion (from Donnie and others) has been over some > > issue that relates directly to either correctness or > > maintainability. It doesn't matter if you can "rattle off > > capabilities to a millimeter" - if they're not documented somewhere > > (like, say, in the comments of the ebuild) then the maintainer that > > comes after you gets to go and break it all over again. > Correctness? Fine. Go ahead. Stick $(use_enable xvmc) into the ebuild. > Do it. I dare you. Then try to compile. > Guess what? When it blows up... that's called INcorrect. The opposite > of the right thing.
You were kindly asked if is not possible to use, so why do you feel attacked? Do a comment on it and everybody would be fine, even the people that would have to maintain it some time in the future. If you don't like the review process, just ignore it. Reviews are not a way to show what kind of idiot the committer is, but to improve the overall quality of the tree. Nothing more, nothing less. > The maintainer who comes after me would be someone with a experience > with the package. Some bumkin isn't going to come to maintain package > XYZ unless they know or use the package, and guess what? That means > experience. Yes, and the same goes for GNU Emacs, I needed some time to figure out what all those things did and I broke it several times because I tried to be clever. Now we documented it and I think everyone coming after us will have a less hard time to understand it. Better document it, you never know what happens. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project <URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode <URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
