[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 15:12:46
Message-ID: 769645d2-9668-4f42-8fa6-855d698ba44e () 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


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