From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EdHoh-0001LL-Gy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:47:00 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAJ1kIap031455; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:46:18 GMT Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.197]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAJ1iXW2015002 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:44:34 GMT Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id c31so16416nfb for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:31 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=UZjJwwnSqsPihGqHFQV+4tfdKKqko1yi1vxzNuY0mcEh/2J5Z+5zRfEoIQyz9yNUkog2UKov2ot7jSPD0Soby9OJppC7ETwbUa+ikLKgxGH4X6lGiR+Uq2ZBGxBFIaYxI33bqsA6CdwrW6MQ1VDulQUT6svZO+62yJ7w+6W0k5Y= Received: by 10.48.43.8 with SMTP id q8mr55766nfq; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.48.143.15 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36babadf0511181744y1b2f9e0bia4b9507d8e007244@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:44:31 +0000 From: George Prowse To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 "Critical News Reporting" Round Two In-Reply-To: <1132357492.8558.58.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> 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/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7567_24473366.1132364671938" References: <20051105005814.0de0d8ff@snowdrop.home> <20051111184053.780ed8c9@sven.genone.homeip.net> <1131748635.8508.86.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <1131751347.25730.58.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <1131757062.8508.119.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <1131809168.8774.10.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> <1131921258.18102.18.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <1131976769.9703.6.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <1132357492.8558.58.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> X-Archives-Salt: 7c5490dc-adef-4579-84f1-66577db92b84 X-Archives-Hash: 60946fea595b7b7edb766a464378b3b8 ------=_Part_7567_24473366.1132364671938 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Having organised several Gentoo UK meetings I would like to be advised if anyone has a problem; especially if they dont come or have no idea when, where or what they are. George Prowse On 11/18/05, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Sorry for the delay in replying. Having a few reliability problems with > my broadband atm. > > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 08:59 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > I thought your proposal was to get critical information to our users, > > not force every user to read that $dev is going to be in $country from > > $date1 to $date2. > > This seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. I've just > gone back and checked my original blog posting, and I definitely didn't > say anything about limiting news delivered via Portage in any way. > > > this, then I change my opinion on supporting this proposal, as I surely > > don't give a damn about some dev meet in the UK that I would never be > > able to attend and *definitely* don't want that *shoved* down my throat > > by the tree. > > That's twice now you've had a pop at the UK meetings in this thread. If > there's some problem with the meetings that you'd like to get off your > chest, you could take it up with me on IRC or any of the other UK devs. > > The events I've been involved in organising have been events for users, > and they've always been put together by both developers and users. I > believe that some of our users *are* interested in exactly this type of > news - and, from the enquiries I've had in the past, not just UK-based > people. > > Maybe we should add the ability to filter news based on some sort of > geographical setting too? That'd be a reasonable thing to add to the > GLEP I think. > > > I also noticed how you lost context in my quote by the way > > you quoted it. Thanks. > > FFS, chill out, or even better come and talk to me on IRC about this > chip you seem to have on your shoulder in our recent dealings. I've no > idea what it is that I've done to upset you atm, but I don't think that > here and bugzilla are the places for it. > > > > I think that's a worthy goal, but looking around, it looks to me that > > > software design just doesn't work like that in real life. Designs hav= e > > > to adapt and change as time passes, not just implementations. > > > > Really? I work with quite a few developers where I work. We have > > meetings. During these meetings, requirements are hashed out to cover > > the scope of the project. The code is then written to the > > specifications. If a later change is made into the requirements, then > > another meeting takes place, and a change request is agreed upon and > > scheduled. They sure as hell don't let the requirements slip otherwise, > > or they would end up in the ever-developing and never-completing world. > > And, equally, the Portage tree is full of examples of software that has > not been developed this way. I'm not saying that it's not a valid > engineering practice; but it's not the only way in the world that > software gets developed. > > But anyway - we were talking about design, not requirements. Although > obviously related, I've always seen them as being different things. > > > We're talking about a *very* simple set of things that need to be > > developed here. Why *would* we even consider not laying out the > > requirements up front? > > I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. You're talking about > requirements now, but my comment that you're responding to was about the > design, which I would normally treat as being different to requirements. > > I agree that it's simple. But I also think that, once we're using it, > we'll learn from that experience and want to make changes. I may not be > the best practitioner of it, but I am a great believer in the F/OSS way > of release early, release often. As a community, we don't seem to have > done too badly out of that approach. > > Best regards, > Stu > -- > Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org > Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ > http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ > > GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu > Key fingerprint =3D 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C > -- > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQBDfmd0DC+AuvmvxXwRAtafAJ9OJtjtMg6iP+/uzrf3+LAuWMjOkACgu++7 > gjAOPPFf5clNdJnyqfKnZfE=3D > =3DaSWJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------=_Part_7567_24473366.1132364671938 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Having organised several Gentoo UK meetings I would like to be advised if anyone has a problem; especially if they dont come or have no idea when, where or what they are.

George Prowse

On 11/18/05, Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org> wrote:
Hi Chris,

Sorry for the delay in replying.  Having a few r= eliability problems with
my broadband atm.

On Mon, 2005-11-14 at = 08:59 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I thought your proposal was to= get critical information to our users,
> not force every user to read that $dev is going to be in $country = from
> $date1 to $date2.

This seems to be a misunderstanding s= omewhere along the line.  I've just
gone back and checked my o= riginal blog posting, and I definitely didn't
say anything about limiting news delivered via Portage in any way.
<= br>> this, then I change my opinion on supporting this proposal, as I su= rely
> don't give a damn about some dev meet in the UK that I would n= ever be
> able to attend and *definitely* don't want that *shoved* down my t= hroat
> by the tree.

That's twice now you've had a pop at the = UK meetings in this thread.  If
there's some problem with the = meetings that you'd like to get off your
chest, you could take it up with me on IRC or any of the other UK devs.=

The events I've been involved in organising have been events for us= ers,
and they've always been put together by both developers and users.&= nbsp; I
believe that some of our users *are* interested in exactly this type of=
news - and, from the enquiries I've had in the past, not just UK-based<= br>people.

Maybe we should add the ability to filter news based on s= ome sort of
geographical setting too?  That'd be a reasonable thing to ad= d to the
GLEP I think.

>   I also noticed how you lo= st context in my quote by the way
> you quoted it.  Thanks.=

FFS, chill out, or even better come and talk to me on IRC about thi= s
chip you seem to have on your shoulder in our recent dealings. &nb= sp;I've no
idea what it is that I've done to upset you atm, but I don't = think that
here and bugzilla are the places for it.

> > I t= hink that's a worthy goal, but looking around, it looks to me that
> > software design just doesn't work like that in real life.&nbs= p; Designs have
> > to adapt and change as time passes, not j= ust implementations.
>
> Really?  I work with quite a= few developers where I work.  We have
> meetings.  During these meetings, requirements are hashe= d out to cover
> the scope of the project.  The code is the= n written to the
> specifications.  If a later change is ma= de into the requirements, then
> another meeting takes place, and a change request is agreed upon a= nd
> scheduled.  They sure as hell don't let the requiremen= ts slip otherwise,
> or they would end up in the ever-developing and = never-completing world.

And, equally, the Portage tree is full of examples of software that= has
not been developed this way.  I'm not saying that it's no= t a valid
engineering practice; but it's not the only way in the world t= hat
software gets developed.

But anyway - we were talking about design, = not requirements.  Although
obviously related, I've always see= n them as being different things.

> We're talking about a *very* = simple set of things that need to be
> developed here.  Why *would* we even consider not laying= out the
> requirements up front?

I think we're talking at cro= ss-purposes here.  You're talking about
requirements now, but = my comment that you're responding to was about the
design, which I would normally treat as being different to requirements= .

I agree that it's simple.  But I also think that, once w= e're using it,
we'll learn from that experience and want to make changes= .  I may not be
the best practitioner of it, but I am a great believer in the F/OSS way=
of release early, release often.  As a community, we don't se= em to have
done too badly out of that approach.

Best regards,
= Stu
--
Stuart Herbert           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;    stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer           =             &nb= sp;          http://www.gentoo.org/
   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    http://= stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from ht= tp://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint =3D 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 &= nbsp;C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----= -
Version: GnuPG=20 v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDfmd0DC+AuvmvxXwRAtafAJ9OJtjtMg6iP+/uzrf3+= LAuWMjOkACgu++7
gjAOPPFf5clNdJnyqfKnZfE=3D
=3DaSWJ
-----END PGP SI= GNATURE-----



------=_Part_7567_24473366.1132364671938-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list