On Monday 08 June 2009 20:35:22 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:56 +0100
> > And how much developer time would be wasted to do so, and indeed has > > already been wasted on this? > Thanks to emails like yours, lots. 5-2009, 800 emails 11.75% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com 4-2009, 287 emails 11.50% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com 3-2009, 602 emails 9.47% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com Congratulations. You managed to consistently hit the top spot for three months in a row, outrunning the second by a wide margin. At this rate of increase you'll write all emails on this mailing list somewhere near 2012 ... Source: http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml > > (If you don't think it is a problem, please feel free to say > > so /without/ resorting to insult over reason. If you think the > > proposal had merit: how come we've only now got agreement that > > easily-extractable EAPI works?) > > Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a > considerable performance impact. I thought the performance impact was still up for debate (and if I'm not mistaken the parsing approach would still be _much_ faster than the current sourcing approach, negating your argument quite nicely ...) > > GLEP 55's getting nowhere because a small group of religious fanatics > are doing anything they can to derail it because it came from "the > wrong people". No, you are ignoring what people say again. It's a bad idea, has nothing to do with your abrasive demeanor, your attempts to deflect the discussion etc. Amazingly people don't care that much about you. > If you want to know the kind of arguments that are being > thrown against GLEP 55 now, just have a look at: > > 22:54 < ciaranm> it's been established by precedent that gleps propose > an enhancement, and that competing enhancements get their own gleps > 22:55 < bonsaikitten> well, we claim precedent on this one > 22:55 < bonsaikitten> so there :) > 22:55 < ciaranm> point to your precedent please > 22:55 < bonsaikitten> it is the precedent > 22:56 < ciaranm> bonsaikitten: uh... i don't think you know what that > means.. > 22:56 < bonsaikitten> ciaranm: you refuse to accept time travel > > Yup, the argument of the week against GLEP 55 is that we refuse to > accept time travel. Oh, you took that little joke seriously. I thought you were joking there, precedent is such a funny and obsolete legal concept. Plus you had been baiting NeddySeagoon for almost an hour at that point, driving the discussion in circles without contributing any constructive comments or fact-based chains of reasoning. And you didn't quote the much better joke: <bonsaikitten> time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like banana That you now take a joke as a serious argument to show that "the others" are wrong is quite hilarious. I do wonder though why you feel the need to diffuse a technical discussion with humoristic things like this ... Still leaves open why you religiously deny any input from me, even if it could solve the problem, and why you try to remove the discussion of alternatives from GLEP55 when NeddySeagoon spent lots of time refining it after multiple people stated the simple problem that it is missing the discussion of alternatives and is not fit for discussion. So maybe you should just let go of this one and let people with experience in documentation, standardization and other similar things fight out this one? Might make it easier to get somewhere.
