On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:54:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This isn't quite what I'm asking for. I want y'all to literally > > document thus: > > > > 1) What your finished solution is going to look like. Users control > > which implementations are enabled via PYTHON_TARGETS, how y'all will > > handle if no targets are currently specified (user hasn't made a > > choice), etc. > > > > 2) How you're planning on getting there- literally, how things are > > going to transition to your proposed replacement for python.eclass, > > how the use deps will be structured, the potential gaps dependencye > > wise as you go forward, etc. > > > > As I indicated in my email, all folks see are changes coming in, no > > sign of the actual end form you're intending, nor how you plan on > > getting there. > > > > I realize y'all may get pissed at being asked to layout your actual > > plans... fact is, python.eclass got into this mess since people > > couldn't track where it was going ultimately leading to the source > > being spaghetti. > > > > Lay out where y'all are going w/ this, and *how*, so people can > > actually comment/contribute/avoid recreating another python.eclass > > where no one understands it. :) > > > > I will admit right now that I don't have a "master plan" in mind, and > we are sort of making it up as we go along. I am not a software > engineer; I just like to read/hack on code. I would love for some > master architect to come along and document where we are headed, but > that hasn't happened. And I'm not the person to do it -- it just > doesn't interest me. > > mgorny has been writing lots of code and is looking for someone to > review it. I'm very good at answering specific questions and offering > an informed opinion, so I'm attempting to do so.
Just zeroing in on this since my other questions aren't really getting addressed in the fashion I want- this however is the core point. Bluntly, there needs to be a plan- and it needs to be shared w/ folk. I wasn't kidding when I stated "review requires making sure your reviewer understands your change and the intent"; as is, all that's realistically occurring here is mgorny gets at best a comment or two bash wise, and that's it- nothing more since no one particularly knows where this is going and we just see random patchsets w/out much explanation as to how this all plugs together. I'm not demanding a point by point plan here; I'm frankly asking that the steps/end results be shared so that we don't wind up with another python.eclass, just this time w/ mgorny being the one who's got it all in his head. It's easy enough to write up a doc (glep if you want) laying out the intent and the roadmap. This should be done- if it has been already, link it in somewhere or start referencing it so the rest of us know wtf the plan is. Simple example, I'd ask "why was PYTHON_TARGETS added when USE_PYTHON could've been fixed/coopted into the same thing?". I ask that now, I'll get flak/bitchyness frankly since it's already deployed/in use. Either way, I'm honestly not trying to piss folks off here nor stop the efforts to dig us out of the python.eclass mess. That said, *this time around* that eclass should actually have a plan so that we don't wind up in the same cluster fuck scenario as prior. It's a simple enough request; document your roadmap. Asking for reviews w/out that, frankly, is pointless (and sooner or later some asswipe like me is going to start -1'ing things till that's addressed). ~harring
