I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, so I'm replying to the initial mail in this thread.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Brian Harring <[email protected]> wrote: [snip proposition] Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would not explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions get personal. The past is the past, don't insert indirect references to it and heat up the discussion. On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care if the proposal is perfect; as a potential user of those features, I want it to be implemented in portage in a reasonable time-frame. Over-engineering and then designing something to death is not the way to deliver said feature to the user. It's really stupid when the design document gets more attention than the implementation used by 90% of our users. Also, what I'm about to say next may make your blood boil, but tbh, most of our users do not care about any package manager besides portage. If a feature cannot be delivered to portage users in a reasonable time-frame, it's useless. Either fix your design so it can be implemented in portage, or fix portage so your design can be implemented in it. Your choice. Don't say "Oh, use XXX package manager". Thank you for reading! -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
