On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:31:56 +0100 Steven J Long <sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote: > > ...but that's not what happens. Instead, the users get their screen > > spammed with annoying messages, > > Er I think you're confusing paludis and portage.
Er. No. As you would know had you read GLEP 55, Portage is noisy if you use bash 4 features in an ebuild and it doesn't have metadata. > > get confused and run to bugzilla in droves. > > > Nice to see you have such a high opinion of our users. You mean, nice to see that I was around and watching what happened back when we didn't have EAPIs to protect us from this sort of thing? > Here, this sums up what's wrong with most of your cockamamy ideas (as > attractive, and oh so right, as they may seem to you now): > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s07.html > > To paraphrase you: Go and read it and don't come back til you've > actually understood the concepts. Sorry, you don't get to post that kind of response until you start being right. In light of you being wrong (see above), please apologise and retract your remarks. > > This just takes us right back to the bad old days when changing > > anything would result in mass user confusion. The whole 'EAPI' thing > > wasn't an arbitrary whim. > > Nor was it supposed to be a six-monthly dump to the list along with a > whole slew of new, half-baked 'proposals' "everyone has to comply" > with as "it's in PMS." > > Abuse of process doesn't make you right; it just makes you annoying. If you have a problem with the EAPI process, I suggest you take it up with the Council. But given they've recently voted that everyone has to comply with PMS or get p.masked, and that we'll do new EAPIs whenever there are features available, and that they considered the EAPI 3 feature list to be appropriate, I doubt you'll get very far. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
