From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Enough about GLEP5{4,5}
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:41:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200906082241.12610.patrick@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090608193522.751a66a3@snowcone>
On Monday 08 June 2009 20:35:22 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:56 +0100
> > And how much developer time would be wasted to do so, and indeed has
> > already been wasted on this?
> Thanks to emails like yours, lots.
5-2009, 800 emails
11.75% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com
4-2009, 287 emails
11.50% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com
3-2009, 602 emails
9.47% ciaran.mccreesh.googlemail.com
Congratulations. You managed to consistently hit the top spot for three months
in a row, outrunning the second by a wide margin. At this rate of increase
you'll write all emails on this mailing list somewhere near 2012 ...
Source: http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml
> > (If you don't think it is a problem, please feel free to say
> > so /without/ resorting to insult over reason. If you think the
> > proposal had merit: how come we've only now got agreement that
> > easily-extractable EAPI works?)
>
> Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a
> considerable performance impact.
I thought the performance impact was still up for debate (and if I'm not
mistaken the parsing approach would still be _much_ faster than the current
sourcing approach, negating your argument quite nicely ...)
>
> GLEP 55's getting nowhere because a small group of religious fanatics
> are doing anything they can to derail it because it came from "the
> wrong people".
No, you are ignoring what people say again. It's a bad idea, has nothing to do
with your abrasive demeanor, your attempts to deflect the discussion etc.
Amazingly people don't care that much about you.
> If you want to know the kind of arguments that are being
> thrown against GLEP 55 now, just have a look at:
>
> 22:54 < ciaranm> it's been established by precedent that gleps propose
> an enhancement, and that competing enhancements get their own gleps
> 22:55 < bonsaikitten> well, we claim precedent on this one
> 22:55 < bonsaikitten> so there :)
> 22:55 < ciaranm> point to your precedent please
> 22:55 < bonsaikitten> it is the precedent
> 22:56 < ciaranm> bonsaikitten: uh... i don't think you know what that
> means..
> 22:56 < bonsaikitten> ciaranm: you refuse to accept time travel
>
> Yup, the argument of the week against GLEP 55 is that we refuse to
> accept time travel.
Oh, you took that little joke seriously. I thought you were joking there,
precedent is such a funny and obsolete legal concept. Plus you had been
baiting NeddySeagoon for almost an hour at that point, driving the discussion
in circles without contributing any constructive comments or fact-based chains
of reasoning.
And you didn't quote the much better joke:
<bonsaikitten> time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like banana
That you now take a joke as a serious argument to show that "the others" are
wrong is quite hilarious. I do wonder though why you feel the need to diffuse
a technical discussion with humoristic things like this ...
Still leaves open why you religiously deny any input from me, even if it could
solve the problem, and why you try to remove the discussion of alternatives
from GLEP55 when NeddySeagoon spent lots of time refining it after multiple
people stated the simple problem that it is missing the discussion of
alternatives and is not fit for discussion. So maybe you should just let go of
this one and let people with experience in documentation, standardization and
other similar things fight out this one? Might make it easier to get
somewhere.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-08 20:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-07 15:54 [gentoo-dev] Enough about GLEP5{4,5} Rémi Cardona
2009-06-07 16:16 ` Roy Bamford
[not found] ` <2144523.vh3QGIWsHC@news.friendly-coders.info>
2009-06-08 18:35 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2009-06-08 20:20 ` Roy Bamford
2009-06-08 20:41 ` Patrick Lauer [this message]
2009-06-08 21:03 ` Dawid Węgliński
2009-06-08 21:32 ` Ulrich Mueller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200906082241.12610.patrick@gentoo.org \
--to=patrick@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox