From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9l5U-0003aE-Qx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:16:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0FE7E03CF; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2332E03CF for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [67.40.138.82] (crater.wildlava.net [67.40.138.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDDE66806 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4A1EE2C0.4070002@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:15:12 -0600 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090512) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How not to discuss References: <20090527210642.6b7b0f21@snowcone> <20090528004518.5a4f91b5@snowcone> <200905280828.13024.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090528191457.21ab4546@snowcone> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5d93b3d8-8556-4468-bfdf-5a508dcd78c8 X-Archives-Hash: 6104816becfb77647bdb682378f5f320 Alec Warner wrote: >> No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename >> based options are objectively better than anything else. > > But the decision will not be based entirely on objective merits > (although I will concede that EAPI in filename is the 'best' technical > choice). (Jeez, I hate to add another to this thread, but this way of defining 'technical' bothers me) Along the lines of what Roy so eloquently expressed, I think it's important that we do not divorce *design* from *technical*. The decision of where to place the EAPI is a design issue, and many of us here clearly believe that it is *not* good design to put this kind of metadata in the filename. Therefore, the statement that it is the 'best' technical choice is not objectively true. Technical issues of performance and efficiency can be addressed when proper design has been done beforehand. Part of the purpose of the implementation (after proper design is in place) is to address performance and other related issues. And part of the design is how we define the *interface*. The filename is clearly part of the interface. It is part of how devs (and users) interact with portage when writing ebuilds. Much of the argument for EAPI in the filename has been motivated by a perceived implementation benefit of speed, as if there were no other solutions (which is naive). As Roy suggested, if all engineering decisions were based purely on pragmatic "ease of implementation" factors, we'd have a lot of ugly designs/interfaces out there. It may be easy (although incorrect) to dismiss elegance/design/interface issues as "non-technical", but I maintain they actually *are* technical matters of great importance. I've been an engineer for over 20 years, and I have seen the pitfalls of taking the quick-and-dirty approach just to slap a new feature into a software app. I've seen how such hasty design mistakes can cause great pain and regret for a long time after. Let's get the design right, first. For what it's worth, GLEP 55 does now provide an option (#3: Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change) that demonstrates good design. -Joe