public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE  validation and VALID_USE alternative)
@ 2010-04-01 17:23 Nirbheek Chauhan
  2010-04-01 17:32 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2010-04-02 13:26 ` Ben de Groot
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nirbheek Chauhan @ 2010-04-01 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, so I'm replying to
the initial mail in this thread.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip proposition]

Improvements in this direction are indeed needed, but I would really
like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would not
explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions
get personal. The past is the past, don't insert indirect references
to it and heat up the discussion.

On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense
get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if
everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care
if the proposal is perfect; as a potential user of those features, I
want it to be implemented in portage in a reasonable time-frame.

Over-engineering and then designing something to death is not the way
to deliver said feature to the user. It's really stupid when the
design document gets more attention than the implementation used by
90% of our users.

Also, what I'm about to say next may make your blood boil, but tbh,
most of our users do not care about any package manager besides
portage. If a feature cannot be delivered to portage users in a
reasonable time-frame, it's useless. Either fix your design so it can
be implemented in portage, or fix portage so your design can be
implemented in it. Your choice. Don't say "Oh, use XXX package
manager".

Thank you for reading!

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE  validation and VALID_USE alternative)
  2010-04-01 17:23 [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative) Nirbheek Chauhan
@ 2010-04-01 17:32 ` Ciaran McCreesh
  2010-04-01 18:58   ` Dror Levin
  2010-04-02 13:26 ` Ben de Groot
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2010-04-01 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:53:10 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On a related note, I really like Zac's and solar's no-nonsense
> get-stuff-done-even-if-it-isn't-perfect attitude, and would love it if
> everyone else applied it as well (if they don't already). I don't care
> if the proposal is perfect; as a potential user of those features, I
> want it to be implemented in portage in a reasonable time-frame.
> 
> Over-engineering and then designing something to death is not the way
> to deliver said feature to the user. It's really stupid when the
> design document gets more attention than the implementation used by
> 90% of our users.

In that case, why would you like to see VALID_USE as well as
pkg_pretend? Why not just use pkg_pretend, which is already in EAPI 4
and which can do everything VALID_USE can do plus several useful things
that it can't?

With pkg_pretend you can do VALID_USE using a simple eclass...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was:  pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)
  2010-04-01 17:32 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2010-04-01 18:58   ` Dror Levin
  2010-04-01 19:01     ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dror Levin @ 2010-04-01 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 726 bytes --]

 On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh <
ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> In that case, why would you like to see VALID_USE as well as
> pkg_pretend? Why not just use pkg_pretend, which is already in EAPI 4
> and which can do everything VALID_USE can do plus several useful things
> that it can't?
>
> With pkg_pretend you can do VALID_USE using a simple eclass...
>
With pkg_pretend you can also implement USE deps, would you like to abolish
them as well? This is data and should be treated as such. Using code to
describe it is possible but suboptimal, if there's a suggestion that allows
for describing this as data rather than with code then it is superior for
all the reasons already stated.

Dror Levin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1064 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)
  2010-04-01 18:58   ` Dror Levin
@ 2010-04-01 19:01     ` Ciaran McCreesh
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2010-04-01 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:58:29 +0300
Dror Levin <spatz@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh <
> ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > In that case, why would you like to see VALID_USE as well as
> > pkg_pretend? Why not just use pkg_pretend, which is already in EAPI
> > 4 and which can do everything VALID_USE can do plus several useful
> > things that it can't?
> >
> > With pkg_pretend you can do VALID_USE using a simple eclass...
> >
> With pkg_pretend you can also implement USE deps, would you like to
> abolish them as well?

Use dependencies can be handled by the package manager in a useful way.

> This is data and should be treated as such.
> Using code to describe it is possible but suboptimal, if there's a
> suggestion that allows for describing this as data rather than with
> code then it is superior for all the reasons already stated.

There's nothing that can make use of it as data, so there's no point.

If, in the distant future, something becomes available that can make
use of it as data, then in a future EAPI we can start using both as
appropriate.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was:  pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)
  2010-04-01 17:23 [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative) Nirbheek Chauhan
  2010-04-01 17:32 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2010-04-02 13:26 ` Ben de Groot
  2010-04-02 21:15   ` Nirbheek Chauhan
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben de Groot @ 2010-04-02 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

On 1 April 2010 19:23, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, [...] but I would
> really like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would
> not explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions
> get personal.

But you _should_ point fingers. The only way to make sure we have
civil discussions is to point out bad behavior and let people know
we don't tolerate that. And when such behavior is displayed
repeatedly, we should exclude such people from taking part in
our discussions. We don't need poisonous people, so let's
get rid of them.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was:  pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative)
  2010-04-02 13:26 ` Ben de Groot
@ 2010-04-02 21:15   ` Nirbheek Chauhan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nirbheek Chauhan @ 2010-04-02 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 1 April 2010 19:23, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I don't want to point fingers in any one direction, [...] but I would
>> really like it if the volatile mix of paludis/pkgcore developers would
>> not explode all over the mailing list. Please don't let the discussions
>> get personal.
>
> But you _should_ point fingers. The only way to make sure we have
> civil discussions is to point out bad behavior and let people know
> we don't tolerate that. And when such behavior is displayed
> repeatedly, we should exclude such people from taking part in
> our discussions. We don't need poisonous people, so let's
> get rid of them.
>

I didn't personally point fingers in this case because me doing so in
that discussion would not have been taken as a neutral party stance.
Besides both sides were being childish; and sending one mail is easier
than 2-3 ;p

Neutral parties are constantly encouraged to put a stop to anti-social
behaviour by polite means (and escalate when necessary). We don't like
to see bytes being wasted on unproductive discussions, but we don't
want a witch-hunt either :)

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-02 21:15 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-04-01 17:23 [gentoo-dev] Please don't turn this into a pissing match. (was: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative) Nirbheek Chauhan
2010-04-01 17:32 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2010-04-01 18:58   ` Dror Levin
2010-04-01 19:01     ` Ciaran McCreesh
2010-04-02 13:26 ` Ben de Groot
2010-04-02 21:15   ` Nirbheek Chauhan

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox