On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200 Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > bring this to the point where we can say something other than > > "huh?". > > You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list > and asking for confirmation of your guess. > > It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the > time offline - at least to me. I interpret, ask if I got it right, > then move on. It's pretty efficient, but requires both sender and > receiver wanting successful transmission.
The issue is not that we don't understand the list. The issue is that we don't understand the problem (beyond superficially), how the proposed solution works from an ebuild perspective, whether the solution solves the problem, or how it all fits together. Most of the stuff on the list is irrelevant from a design perspective. It's not that the list is hard to understand, it's that understanding the problem and solution requires completely different material. To take one example, figuring out exactly which variables get mangled is an unimportant detail at this stage (and likely we'll want to offload it to profiles, not hard-code it in PMS) and not a central part of the proposal. What we need is a GLEP, describing it in high level terms with a discussion upon how it impacts users and ebuild developers, and a PMS patch, highlighting what's to be changed in specific technical terms. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
