From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5BIUpg1024764 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:30:52 GMT Received: from agriffis by smtp.gentoo.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DhAl2-0004lW-4f for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:31:00 +0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:46:51 -0400 X-OfflineIMAP-746016923-64676f73656e64-494e424f582e4f7574626f78: 1118515630-00359631440652-v4.0.8 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Message-ID: <20050611184651.GB15882@olive.flatmonk> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050606222623.GI9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <42A8653F.3060409@gentoo.org> <1118415317.13269.31.camel@rivendell> <200506101233.33994.vapier@gentoo.org> <1118477722.13125.44.camel@rivendell> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1118477722.13125.44.camel@rivendell> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: d275b779-25bb-4cbd-9889-b977b55dc852 X-Archives-Hash: 85412d909470d5a53b47cbdb2ed90512 --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline foser wrote: [Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT] > Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as > a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence, there is no abc > order in sentences. Foser, no offense intended, but you started out in this thread making a couple good points. However this is completely off the wall. The KEYWORDS list isn't a sentence. > If you have to search, you'll have > to scan anyway, exact position is not a guarantee for certainty because > not every pack is available on every arch, it's not like you can go > without scanning. Doesn't change the point that scanning in alpha order is easier than scanning append order. > Last, this only holds to some extent true for people > in countries with alphabetic scripts, outside that limited part of the > globe people are not as proficient in ordering alphabetically. AFAIK, all Gentoo developers are fluent English speakers, even if for some it isn't their first language. > A certain amount of uncertainty in order actually might prove to be > effective in having everyone who deals with keywords actually really > check all keywords and not depend on assumptions, which both 'error' > cases you mention seem to be caused by. Maintaining a behavior that encourages mistakes, in hopes that the extra effort required will prevent those mistakes? This cannot possibly be a good approach... IMHO the discussion in this thread has brought at least two things to light, though I'm still open to rebuttal of course: 1. Potentially controversial tool changes that affect a large number of developers should be discussed on -dev before deployment. This is something I intend to do in the future. 2. In the case at hand, most developers prefer alpha order, and there is not good reason for reverting the ekeyword change. I still don't have the right to make this decision unilaterally, though, so if foser or anybody else wants to take this before the managers and request a vote, that is cool. Regards, Aron -- Aron Griffis Gentoo Linux Developer --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCqzGbJrHF4yAQTrARAiwHAJ9imLWWNkwP0ov1yn13hkJ3DV/cEACeJ10H 6rjcORvvDjxbhWQ0JRWSbac= =btUA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list