On Sep 6, 2012 10:18 AM, "Michael Orlitzky" <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: > > On 09/05/2012 05:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > > > > Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane. > > > >> and isn't a compromise at all. > > > > I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required > > outcome of this. Given the choice between something productive, and > > something not productive, you don't choose the quasi-productive > > solution. > > From a developer's perspective, it's obviously better to be able to do > whatever you want. But for users it'd be nice to be able to request a > bump to EAPI5 and not get told to buzz off. > > Some people are unhappy with the current situation or this thread > wouldn't exist. A good compromise should make everyone just a little bit > unhappy =)
Open source is built on scratching your own itch. As I said, you want eapi5 for user patching, either you're on the devs prioritization, or you do it yourself. You may not like that fact, but that *is* reality- filing nagging tickets isn't really going to help (more likely to piss people off in the same way zero-day tickets do). Suggest you put effort towards eapi5 rather than this thread; the thread isn't productive any longer (arguing the point when people have said no in full force is pointless). ~harring >
