[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
From:       Chris Reffett <creffett () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-08-09 15:44:21
Message-ID: 52c78665-99e6-4e93-a440-d92bebf03035 () email ! android ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On August 9, 2014 10:56:49 AM EDT, Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> wrote:
 [snip]
> Just the main blockers are:
> 
> - Somebody has to implement this technology
> - That requires time and effort
> - People have to be convinced of its value
> - Integration must happen at some level somehow somewhere in the
> portage toolchain(s)
> - People must opt in to this technology in order for the reports to
> happen
> - And only then can this start to deliver meaningful results.
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO seriously, it could be done if ONLY portage dev team would
> implement 
> an interface CAPABLE for HTTP reporting. Once the interface is there
> but turned off 
> by default - server side statistics are feasible. Personally I don't
> see any future of 
> this system unless it's coded in portage. Today - portage support
> without server side 
> - tomorrow - server side. 

Then write it. Portage's source is available to anyone. I remember that you were on \
this list earlier this year pushing for "Portage QOS" or something. Keep in mind what \
a significant number of people told you then: first, if you want to make some change, \
just do it and show us what you have, rather than asking  for votes and permission \
and changes. Second, repeatedly saying "we should have (some feature)" doesn't work \
if the people who would do the work (the portage team) don't see value in it. From \
the general response on the list, I would say this is the case. This means that if \
you want the feature, write it and come back with an implementation, since \
complaining about it is getting you nowhere.

Chris Reffett
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<br>
<br>
On August 9, 2014 10:56:49 AM EDT, Igor &lt;lanthruster@gmail.com&gt; wrote:<br>
 [snip]<br>
&gt;Just the main blockers are:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;- Somebody has to implement this technology<br>
&gt;- That requires time and effort<br>
&gt;- People have to be convinced of its value<br>
&gt;- Integration must happen at some level somehow somewhere in the<br>
&gt;portage toolchain(s)<br>
&gt;- People must opt in to this technology in order for the reports to<br>
&gt;happen<br>
&gt;- And only then can this start to deliver meaningful results.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;IMHO seriously, it could be done if ONLY portage dev team would<br>
&gt;implement <br>
&gt;an interface CAPABLE for HTTP reporting. Once the interface is there<br>
&gt;but turned off <br>
&gt;by default - server side statistics are feasible. Personally I don&#39;t<br>
&gt;see any future of <br>
&gt;this system unless it&#39;s coded in portage. Today - portage support<br>
&gt;without server side <br>
&gt;- tomorrow - server side. <br>
<br>
Then write it. Portage&#39;s source is available to anyone. I remember that you were \
on this list earlier this year pushing for &quot;Portage QOS&quot; or something. Keep \
in mind what a significant number of people told you then: first, if you want to make \
some change, just do it and show us what you have, rather than asking  for votes and \
permission and changes. Second, repeatedly saying &quot;we should have (some \
feature)&quot; doesn&#39;t work if the people who would do the work (the portage \
team) don&#39;t see value in it. From the general response on the list, I would say \
this is the case. This means that if you want the feature, write it and come back \
with an implementation, since complaining about it is getting you nowhere.<br> <br>
Chris Reffett<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]