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 4.43) id 1E3iE3-00082h-I6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:42:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7CMfVS5026876; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:41:31 GMT Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.204]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7CMfUud002345 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:41:31 GMT Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x7so545745nzc for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dUm88/3r4KBPTn6lVe5U/Ae1+KvTNLltg32wlYTYbSB6ZQZQU0YsWdZztKORf7k6iIdmaTLvBjYNOepsqEAFOoFOC3EJ6JSblq80IGkQ1mX5RGvAKuNStEpBtxu7P8Ir252Vhj96uAhWNtwhMhkgX/X2Y0ql6NR6L0QER9YTtxk= Received: by 10.36.75.13 with SMTP id x13mr2795626nza; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.104? ([24.30.171.44]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 37sm186219nzf.2005.08.12.15.41.31; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <42FD2760.3010600@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:49:04 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050804) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] the refactoring of emerge, continued... (was PATCH: refactor emerge spinner (#102073)) References: <42FADD3A.7020103@gmail.com> <200508112306.20986.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <42FC3163.2080709@gmail.com> <42FC97C9.7050301@egr.msu.edu> <42FD0D42.3020500@gmail.com> <42FD193D.8010200@egr.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <42FD193D.8010200@egr.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7b50c52a-ba63-4c95-bb24-b0061c5e0923 X-Archives-Hash: ee1b5565757706be1cd45517389b94b1 warnera6 wrote: > > It was my understanding that large patches to portage were not to > receive great consideration due to just that, regressions and bugs. Why > break something that is proven? I will agree that emerge is a huge > piece, I've torn it apart more than once. However it currently does the > job, so I don't see a point in rewriting it unless there is : a) an > immediate benefit for users, and b) some sort of way to gaurantee a > problem free update. > > I don't see a), they get prettier code to look at, but I wouldn't want > people writing code against emerge. > b) is hard to do, even if it's just function and variable re-organizing, > it's 2000 lines of code that has a lot of interaction and there are > going to be bugs. > a) Probably not much benefit, unless it helps us to recognize and fix subtle bugs (not sure if there are any, in emerge at least). b) Like I said, based on my analysis, I believe it can be done quickly and painlessly, without regressions. > I just don't see the worth of it. Why rewrite the front-end when the > backend isn't done? > Again, no benefit unless it helps to fix bugs. I want to emphasize that I have not suggested a "rewrite" per se, but only a quick reorganization. > Not to mention you can upgrade the code here, and then upgrade it again > to the new portage API in 2.1, since I would guess many calls are being > refactored and rewritten to be object oriented. > > In the end nothing I say really matters, if you want to do the > refactoring I certainly can't stop you, I just don't think it's worth it > to rewrite at this time ;) I certainly don't want to it if there's no benefit. ;-) Zac -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list