On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:25:30 +0100 Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Most of your comments don't make sense if you are commenting on the > > actual proposal. However, it seems that you immediately ignored the > > core part of the proposal, and then commented on stupidity of some > > distorted, imagined, half-ass proposal you imagined that lacks the > > core part. > > I had merely addressed the following two points: > > - The proposal would split the behaviour of the existing operators > depending on context: a) They ignore the revision when in a [] group > but don't when used in the traditional way, and b) syntax is changed > unnecessarily, e.g. ~ vs == and = vs ===. The traditional way is only meant as a backwards compatibility solution. I don't think we really should keep two syntax variants supported forever, just because some developers are opposed to learn anything new, and prefer contributing through every-half-a-year bursts of drive-by commits. Since the syntax needs to be changed anyway, why not introduce a consistent set of operators instead of being forced to use whatever was accidentally used years ago? ==, !=, <=, >= -- all consistent with one another. Same for ===, !==, <==, >==. Using some old ~ and = wouldn't fit that. The gain is greater than any benefit keeping old operator in a completely new syntax. If you think it necessary, we can also change > to >> and to << to have matching length for all relevant operators. Doesn't Debian do that? > - The number of operators is doubled for no good reason. Revisions are > not so special that they would justify that. In addition, if we > limit the allowed range of revisions to 9999, the need for such > operators will go away entirely. The most common cases (namely >= > and ~) can be expressed already now, and the rather more rare That's non-symmetrical -> ugly. I'm proposing a pretty solution that doesn't go and tell everyone else what is justified and what is not. > less-than-or-equal-to-but-ignoring-revision can be expressed using > r9999 (in those even more rare cases where a < comparison with the > next PV doesn't work). That's a Gentoo policy. PMS applies outside Gentoo. Plus, do you really find it convenient to type -r9999? > For both points the cost of the syntax change or of introducing > inconsistencies doesn't come with any benefit in the form of added > functionality. The cost of a major syntax change is pretty much the same. People have to learn the new syntax and rewrite their dependencies anyway. Adding a single '=' is a minor problem compared to the cost introduced by ranges. Plus, having a simpler way of expressing dependencies correctly also changes things. Many developers were simply ignoring the correctness right now as too hard to achieve. So the cost is still higher. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgppWiReaO78w.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
